2007-08-14 09:30:00 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
batgirl2good: Google "post hoc ergo proptor hoc."
A common example is, "Well, they took school-sanctioned prayer out of public schools, and all of a sudden childhood lead poisoning went down!"
2007-08-14 09:37:12 · update #1
Ok, i see, I have never heard of it before, but upon a quick 'wiki', I see what you mean. It says right there in the article (not that I need the article to tell me) that it is a logic fallicy. Which I agree. So I guess my answer is 1.
2007-08-14 09:36:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I believe you are asking whether the cause and effect relationship is implied by merely the fact that something happened after something else. Like I prayed for your return to health, and you returned to health, therefore it was my prayer that did the job. Right?
Obviously, it ain't necessarily so, as Sportin' Life would put it. For example, after I moved to St. Louis, a new rule was instituted in the Galleria to reduce the number of teenagers hanging out there. However, I had nothing whatever to do with the institution of that rule.
Can you say "coincidence"?
2007-08-15 09:00:27 · answer #2 · answered by auntb93 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anybody who's taken a logic class knows that a post hoc ergo propter hoc (did I spell propter right?) argument is invalid.
2007-08-14 16:38:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A comma (and maybe a few more words)might have made this a little more comprehensible. I presume you mean "After, therefore because"; in other words, B occurs after A, therefore A caused B.
And it is an entirely unreliable assertion. For instance, Karl Rove quitting occured after the Utah mine collapse, therefore Karl quit because of the collapse? Nope. Mere temporal order does not imply causality in any way.
2007-08-14 16:41:50 · answer #4 · answered by stmichaeldet 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
1
CSI came on the air and then we on the air and then we went to war in Iraq. Coincidence?
2007-08-14 16:39:51 · answer #5 · answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. You have correctly identified the logical fallacy.
2007-08-14 16:38:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You'd think you could build a house on it, as much as it is used here on R&S!
2007-08-14 16:38:24 · answer #7 · answered by Herodotus 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
My head hurts
2007-08-14 16:37:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about?
After therefore because WHAT?
2007-08-14 16:35:47 · answer #9 · answered by batgirl2good 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋