As any conjurer would know, there are at least a dozen methods one can employ to produce the same effect.
Eg: The ACR, a classic magic trick where the selected card, after being buried into the middle of the deck (I am assuming here that you know I am referring to a deck of playing cards), repeatedly jumped back to the top. The magician could be using a p**** (an esoteric code known only to those in the know) to transfer the card to the top or he could be using a DL or even a DB (a la Vernon).
From the spectator’s perspective, they could only see the “effect”, that is the selection appearing on top. The “cause”, assuming the performer had been competent, should remain obscure from their knowledge till the Armmagedon, or so we hoped (till he/she decides to patronize a certain magic shop and be let in on the devious little secret for 50 bucks).
Of course, it is human’s nature to try to make sense of the inexplicable phenomenon he/she had just witnessed (anyone who doesn’t should get their brains checked). They might suspect that the card was really up the magician’s sleeves (but he was wearing a T-shirt), or he had a duplicate card (but the selection was signed by the spec himself) or perhaps even he was using some sort of “trick deck” (but the deck was examined by the spec and his friends before and after the performance).
But frankly, our brethrens from the fraternity have more weapons at our disposal to resort to such blatant ruses.
Anyway, the point I wish to make is: What can be observed (the effect) may not be the result of a straightforward causes (which could be hidden). Just because X CAN caused Y does not mean that the cause MUST be X, as there could be an abundance of other causes from A to Z that could have caused Y.
It still bemuses (on occassions, enrages) me that there are many presumptous people who likes to think that just because they “see” X, they can conclude with absolute certainty that it must mean Y, and it gets pretty tiresome trying to convince them otherwise, because they “KNOW” they are right.
Eg: “You must be unhappy because you never smile”, “You must be very stressed because you look preoccupied while talking me” …et cetra.
Seems to me that these self-absorbed people do not tend to engage in much intropsection, as it might dawned on them that I was absolutely bored and depressed by what he/she was babbling about that I have to find refuge in my own thoughts, thinking about the more exciting in life like “when is he/she ever going to stop?”.