4 ms·
They seem to just dump every current theory in a pile and call this pile a new theory. (Climate change is even thrown in, in the main paper) I think as a rule
by aaron695 12y ago
They seem to just dump every current theory in a pile and call this pile a new theory. (Climate change is even thrown in, in the main paper)
I think as a rule of thumb, things don't happen because of multiple reasons.
If someone tells you this is great because of X, Y, Z chances are Y and Z are made up to make the argument.
80/20 rule. There's always a main reason for things, the other stuff is just fluff that really doesn't matter.
This is different to cause and effect, once you destroy a habitat you create a new order of things for an animal. Then disease might turn into the 80%.
- coliveira 12y agoI think that is not true. I came to realize that most difficult social and environmental problems occur because of a set of causes acting in combination. Most of the time, when a problem has a single cause it is possible to fix it easily. However, with many important problems it is so hard to find a solution exactly because so many of these causes have to be addressed at the same time.
- jhedwards 12y agoFrom what I have studied, I think the case is actually the opposite: as a rule, biological phenomena are usually the result of multiple causation because those systems are extremely complex and often very resilient. Mario Bunge gave the following example in his book "Causality and Modern Science": even in a simple system like a wire connected to a battery it is not accurate to say "the battery causes the increase in charge in the wire". The increase is determined by the interaction between the battery and the resistance property of the wire, it cannot be explained by the battery alone. A different wire might not have any charge at all. Thinking in this way about a system as complex as bee populations, the probability of multiple causation seems very high indeed.