The Interval

If A is seen to produce B, then A might be avoided. Not because men are good, but because they are cautious. So long as the connection is clear, action is constrained.

We do not deny that A produces B. We prevent the connection from being established in any single account.

The connection exists. It will be established eventually.

Existence is not the issue.

Only recognition in the short run is.

I could not have phrased this better. Who cares about historians centuries later.

Causality remains. You observe A and B repeatedly. You vary A while holding other things constant. You compare groups. You remove one practice and leave another. When B moves only where A has changed, you infer that A produces B. This is not immediate. It requires work.

Work that will take time …

With modern technologies it can be swift. Data is readily available.

Data.

Yes, data.

You are dreaming. It’s really quite easy. You separate the observations. You alter conditions between them. You ensure that no two cases align cleanly. You let time pass. You add explanations. The evidence is never quite sufficient.

Someone will assemble it. They will see what you have done. They will compare what you refused to compare. They will remove what you kept adding. They will narrow it again until the difference stands. And then they will say: this led to this.

Today’s data will wipe out your illusions.

Data access has to be controlled.

This might help you in the short run.

The short run is all we need.

You don’t want to gamble.

Gambling is an art.

An art.

Maybe we do not have to gamble. We can just divert attention.

By letting one horror be followed by the next …