False Cause

Fallacy of False Cause

The fallacy committed when an
argument mistakenly attempts to
establish a causal connection
Two basic forms:
Non causa pro causa
Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Non Causa Pro Causa

literally "no cause for a cause
To mistake what is not the cause of a
given effect as the real cause
the general category of "false cause
Informal structure:
Event x is related to event y.
Event x caused event y.

Examples
Napoleon was a great emperor.
Napoleon was so short.
Napoleon became a great emperor
because he was so short.
I use a G-tech pen during exams. One
time, I used My-gel instead, and I scored
badly in that exam. I've used G-tech
ever since.

 "When the telephone was first introduced

to Saudi Arabia, some contended it was an
instrument of the devil. But others
pointed out that, according to Moslem
doctrine, the devil is incapable of reciting
the Koran. When several verses of the
Koran were recited and heard over the
phone, skeptics were convinced that the
instrument wasn't evil." Wall Street Journal
(11.11.79).

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

literally "after this, therefore because
of this
The fallacy of assuming a causal
connection between two events
merely because one follows the other
Committed when we argue that
because a certain event was
preceded by another event, the
preceding event was the cause of the
latter

 Informal structure:
B comes after A (post hoc)
Therefore, (ergo),
B comes because of A (propter hoc).
That A precedes B does not necessarily
make A the cause of B.

 David Hume, 1748

Nor is it reasonable to conclude, merely
because one event, in one instance,
precedes another, that therefore the one
is the cause, the other the effect. Their
conjunction may be arbitrary and
casual.

Examples
Since hair always precedes the growth
of teeth in babies, the growth of hair
causes the growth of teeth.
The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out
of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the
TV soundly on the side and the picture
goes back into focus. Jim tells his
friend that hitting the TV fixed it.

Post hoc fallacy contd

It is theoretically possible for the fallacy to be committed
when A really does cause B, provided that the "evidence"
given consists only of the claim that A occurred before B.
The key to the Post Hoc fallacy is not that there is no causal
connection between A and B. It is that adequate evidence
has not been provided for a claim that A causes B.
Thus, Post Hoc resembles a Hasty Generalization in that it
involves making a leap to an unwarranted conclusion. In
the case of the Post Hoc fallacy, that leap is to a causal
claim instead of a general proposition.

Cases
Brennan v. United Steelworkers of
America
To conclude that because international
officers supported Sadlowskis opponent
in a fraudulent election, the
international was therefore responsible
for the fraud, is a classic post hoc
fallacy. The mere chronological
sequence of events does not establish a
causal connection.

 Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc.

Evidence that competitors complaints to supplier
preceded the suppliers termination of agreement with
plaintiff was insufficient evidence to permit reasonable
inference that defendant terminated plaintiffs distributor
agreement because of competitors complaints.

Del Pilar v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

He has relied upon the old logical fallacy of post hoc ergo
propter hoc, that because he felt pain after he had sat in
the seat, therefore the condition of the seat was the
cause of his pain, without offering competent proof to
establish this causal connection.