This is not confusing correlation with causation or Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After this, therefore because of this) What is the bias/fallacy in action here?

 

See What I Mean?

Nasrudin was throwing handfuls of crumbs around his house.
‘What are you doing?’ someone asked him.
‘Keeping the tigers away.’
‘But there are no tigers in these parts.’
‘That’s right. Effective, isn’t it?’ 

The scenario presented involves the logical fallacy known as "non sequitur" and can also be related to an absurd application of the "false cause" fallacy. Here's why:

1. **Non Sequitur**: The term "non sequitur" means "it does not follow" in Latin. In this context, Nasrudin's conclusion that his action of throwing crumbs is keeping tigers away is a non sequitur because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. There is no logical connection between throwing crumbs and the absence of tigers, so the conclusion is based on irrelevant or missing premises.

2. **False Cause (Absurd Version)**: This might inadvertently mimic a "false cause" fallacy where one assumes a causal relationship between two events simply because they occur together or sequentially. However, the twist here is that the tigers were never present to begin with, making the presumed cause (throwing crumbs) entirely irrelevant to the effect (absence of tigers).

Nasrudin's reasoning is flawed because he assumes a causal link where none exists, believing his actions are effective without evidence. This example humorously exaggerates the fallacy to highlight its absurdity, demonstrating a misunderstanding of how cause and effect work.