Here’s what people say when they’re asked which of two plausible causes leads to an outcome: “Hmm, it’s probably a bit of both!”
As if that adds anything to the discussion.
Nature or nurture? "Hmm, it's probably a bit of both."
As if that adds anything to the discussion.
Nature or nurture? "Hmm, it's probably a bit of both."
The humidity or the heat? "Probably a bit of both!!"
Hard work or dumb luck? "Per my rigorous analysis, I can conclude that each of the two postulated dependent variables may be considered to be considered contributory factors!"
I could have told you it was a bit of both. My dead Shih Tzu could have told you it was a bit of both.
What I'm obviously asking is, "which of these two factors is dominant in causing what we observe?" Pick one and elaborate! Choose a side and defend it! Argue that this is a false choice!
But please, please, please don't suppose that mere citation of the well-known existence of multiple causation could ever be construed as a contribution to the conversation.
