Is this the basis of dilemma?

Virgin Explorer — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:34:24 GMT

1.Smoking causes heart disease.
In this, smoking is the cause and heart disease is the effect.
This statement relates a single cause with a single effect [single cause – single effect relation].

2.Exercise prevents heart disease.
In this, exercise is the cause and prevention of heart disease is the effect. This statement also relates a single cause with a single effect [single cause – single effect relation]. Almost every human statement (scientific/philosophical/idiotic/ nonsensical) relates a single cause to a single effect.

3.Suppose that Mrs. Shiva happened to be a chain smoker and a good athlete. What would be the fate of her heart?
In this case, more than one cause (smoking and exercise) act in combination. Is there scientific method to predict the effect when more than one cause act in combination? Alas, one would say that there is multivariate analysis!

Every human logic fails predict the effect (outcome) when more than one cause act in combination. This is the source of every dilemma and confusion!!!

RE: Is this the basis of dilemma?

goldengopher — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:48:05 GMT

I have never smoked, don't plan on smoking, and am proud to live in Minnesota where we have some of the strongest anti smoking laws.

RE: Is this the basis of dilemma?

DB Lady — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:36:25 GMT

Virgin explorer,

If she smokes more than she exercises, then she will be prone to heart disease.

RE: Is this the basis of dilemma?

Lido — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:13:18 GMT

One can approximate the chance of an outcome by taking into account the various causes and assigning a weight to each one. The larger the number of causes and the accuracy of the weight of each cause the more accurate the prediction of the probable outcome. This is a statistical method.

A, therefore B is bad logic always.