search

Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

# Questionable Cause

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

(also known as: butterfly logic, ignoring a common cause, neglecting a common cause, confusing correlation and causation, confusing cause and effect, false cause, third cause, third-cause fallacy, juxtaposition [form of], reversing causality/wrong direction [form of])

Description: Concluding that one thing caused another, simply because they are regularly associated.

Logical Form:

A is regularly associated with B; therefore, A causes B.

Example #1:

Every time I go to sleep, the sun goes down.  Therefore, my going to sleep causes the sun to set.

Explanation: I hope the fallacious reasoning here is very clear and needs no explanation.

Example #2:

Many homosexuals have AIDS. Therefore, homosexuality causes AIDS.

Explanation: While AIDS is found in a much larger percentage of the homosexual population than in the heterosexual population, we cannot conclude that homosexuality is the cause of AIDS, any more than we can conclude that heterosexuality is the cause of pregnancy.

Exception: When strong evidence is provided for causation, it is not a fallacy.

Variation: The juxtaposition fallacy is putting two items/ideas together, implying a causal connection, but never actually stating that one exists.

It’s funny how whenever you are around, the room smells bad.

Reversing causality or wrong direction is just what is sounds like -- it is still a false cause, but the specific case where one claims something like the sun sets because night time is coming.

Fun Fact: To establish causality you need to show three things: 1) that X came before Y, 2) that the observed relationship between X and Y didn't happen by chance alone, and 3) that there is nothing else that accounts for the X then Y relationship.

References:

Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (2006). Logical Self-defense. IDEA.

### Eat Meat... Or Don't.

#### Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

##### Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book