The philosophical adage, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”(Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy. It states that, "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A simple example of it is "The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise." The Post Hoc Fallacy is a crude simplification of facts according to their chronology, in order to come to an easy causation verdict. Prosecutors often use its seeming logic but defense attorneys are usually quick to refute it with the statement, “Correlation does not imply causation!” The problem with the post hoc logic is the same as with all formulas or truth: It becomes wrong or false when taken to an extreme. A person can go out while forgetting an open candle in their room and come back to their home on fire. It seems logical to assume that the fire was due to the abandoned candle, but unless it was actually visibly witnessed, there is always the possibility of an unknown factor X that would want to make authorities believe that the fire happened because of one person’s inattention. It is easy to make negative judgments about people’s lives by using the post hoc logical deduction, but are we always right? Isn’t there a factor X in their lives that we are not aware of? The thing is that it is as easy to assume the positive as it is to assume the negative, and at the end of the day, we might be wrong either way, so why not rather assume the positive?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
If you appreciate these articles, support their upcoming publication in a book called, "REFLECTIONS OF A FIRE CHAPLAIN"
|