causation in two unrelated events
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I go to my primary doctor for an yearly exam ,I have no symptoms but he suspects an ear infection he first contemplates to admit me for 3 days to the hospital for evaluation and treatment but than decides to see me in 3 days for reevaluation.
A day after my doctor appointment I have car accident and 3 days latter I am reevaluated as scheduled and found not to have an ear infection at all.
I argue that if he admitted me for 3 days to the hospital I would not have the car accident which is a true fact.What will be the logical fallacies in blaming the doctor for not admitting me [now we know that admission will be without any real indication since i did not have the ear infection] and avoid the car accident?
A day after my doctor appointment I have car accident and 3 days latter I am reevaluated as scheduled and found not to have an ear infection at all.
I argue that if he admitted me for 3 days to the hospital I would not have the car accident which is a true fact.What will be the logical fallacies in blaming the doctor for not admitting me [now we know that admission will be without any real indication since i did not have the ear infection] and avoid the car accident?
Answers
1This is a prime example of the Historian’s Fallacy , judging a person's decision in the light of new information not available at the time.
On a side note, "true fact" is redundant :) "Fact" is good enough. If it is not true, it is not a fact.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course