This week's logical fallacy is Post-hoc ergo propter hoc.
This is perhaps the most common of logical fallacies. It follows the basic format of A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related (the Latin translates to “after this, therefore because of this”). This logical fallacy is frequently invoked when defending various forms of alternative medicine - I was sick, I took treatment A, I got better, therefore treatment A made me better. It is possible to have recovered from an illness without any treatment.
Keep in mind (as with the correlation and causation fallacy described later) it is possible that A did cause B. The logical fallacy is in assuming causation. It is still valid to argue for causation if there is independent evidence to support a causational relationship over other interpretations, such as coincidence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Digg/jdkimble
Myspace/jdkimble
Facebook/Joshua Kimble
YouTube/jdkimble
Del.icio.us/jdkimble
GMail/Joshua Kimble
2 comments:
Justin tried to argue something yesterday and I, being a well-read fallacy detector (thanks to your blog), identified the fallacy in his argument and even said "Whoa there, thunder, that's a logical fallacy. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc, to be precise. Boo-yah."
So I thank you for that fleeting moment of glory :)
That's awesome! I think Justin will have to study up on his Logical Fallacies to keep up with you.
Post a Comment