True or False.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that one event must have caused a later event simply because it happened after the other.
True.
Tell me if this is an example of PHEPH:
Lucinda went to the moon yesterday; it then rained. When she returned today, it no longer rained, and the sun shined. When Luci leaves the earth, the earth cries because it misses Luci.
True!
This makes an unwarranted assumption that because Lucinda went to the moon for a day, it caused precipitation, let alone the earth started to have feelings and actually cry because of her. There could have been rain forecasted to happen coincidentally on the day she left for the moon, it it would be sunny when she returned.
Make a Real world Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc example. (30 seconds).
All tables answer!
Good Job guys.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc usually is easy to recognize.
True.
As such, one might be misled into thinking that the fallacy is always that easy to identify. One might also miss how their psychology might motivate our vulnerability to such poor reasoning. However, if one is very careful and thinks about cause-and-effect scenarios, identifying this fallacy should not be too hard.
Tell me if this is an example of PHEPH:
The lightning struck the tree, and then the tree caught on fire, sadly; Carol's shee-shed caught on fire because the branches from the tree fell onto her shed. Carol was severely devasted, so Lucinda comforted her.
Yes! This is a direct cause-and-effect relationship.
In November 2015, a gunman opened fire at a Planned Parenthood (PP) clinic in Colorado Springs, killing three people. PP had been the subject of criticism from anti-abortion activists. After the shooting, Senator Bernie Sanders commented the following:
“While we still do not know the shooter’s motive, what is clear is that Planned Parenthood has been the subject of vicious and unsubstantiated statements attacking an organization that provides critical health care for millions of Americans. I...hope people realize that bitter rhetoric can have unintended consequences.” (Sander, 2015).
According to the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy, is this fallacious?
Yes!
This is Fallacious because Sanders admitted he didn’t know why the gunman did what he did, but that didn’t stop him from making a connection that wasn’t necessarily there, the connection that the clinic was necessarily the sole target of many vicious attacks on those who are enraged with its practices.
The fallacy is generally referred to by the shorter phrase, "post hoc.
Watch this clip and tell an example of PHEPH that occurs.
(This time, you only have till the video ends to say your answer, obviously, so have your answers ready.)
D A I L Y D O U B L E
Examples are but not limited too:
-Minako says that since Haruka is attractive to her, and she met her today, it's her lucky day.
-Haruka thinks Minako is cute, after they played a really close round of racing, Haruka says "cute girls are good at racing", because Minako is cute.
-Because Haruka and Michiru (green haired girl) hang out together, Usagi (Sailor moon) and Minako assume they are a couple
-Minako argues because they did not kiss or hug yet, after following them around for hours, they are not a couple.
-Minako argues because Haruka is Handsome, and he likes Handsome people, she is the "man" of her dreams.
-Everyone but Michiru assumes Haruka is a girl because she is masculine and doesn't wear traditional clothes for Japanese girls, nor, have the physical features a girl has.
The Archduke was killed in an attack during a diplomatic visit to Sarajevo, by the Serbian citizen Gavrilo Princip, a member of a radical faction called Bosnia Joven. The cause of the attack was that Francisco Fernando was the heir to the crown of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The attack on the empire led him to declare war on Serbia, thus beginning the First World War.
According to the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy, is this fallacious?
This is not PHEPH, it's a direct cause and effect relationship in our natural world.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc also means "after this, therefore because of this"?
True, this is what it means in Latin.
Tell me if this is an example of our PHEPH:
“Unemployment decreased in the fourth quarter because the government eliminated the gasoline tax in the second quarter.” Hansen (2020)
False
Such reasoning is potentially fallacious because the decrease in unemployment after the elimination of the gasoline tax may have been due to other causes like an increase in demand for products in the fourth quarter. Another possibility is that these two events occur in succession because they have a common cause.
“Unemployment decreased in the fourth quarter because the government eliminated the gasoline tax in the second quarter.” (Hansen, 2020)
According to the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy, is this fallacious?
Such reasoning is potentially fallacious because the decrease in unemployment that took place after the elimination of the gasoline tax may have been due to other causes like an increase in demand for products in the fourth quarter. Another possibility is that these two events occur in succession because they both have a common cause.
Keep in mind that the statement above may very well be true. It’s not a formally invalid argument. This argument is fallacious not because it is formally invalid, but because it makes unwarranted assumptions.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc can be thought of as: A happened just before B, so B caused A.
No!
It can be thought of as A happened just before B, so A caused B.
“On the fatal night of the Doria’s collision with the Swedish ship Grisholm, off Nantucket, the lady retired to her cabin and flicked the light switch. Suddenly there was a great crash and grinding metal, and passengers and crew ran screaming through the passageways. The lady burst from her cabin and explained to the first person in sight that she must have set the ship’s emergency brake” (Fischer, 1970, p. 166)
This is an example of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
The passenger concludes that the switch she flicked set off an emergency brake. She assumed that something that happens on trains might happen on a ship. She also assumed that a light switch was the emergency brake because the ship suddenly stopped after she flicked it. Ships don’t have brakes.
Even if they did, it’s not likely that the emergency brake would be located in individual cabins and shaped like light switches.
This is an example of fallacious reasoning for many reasons, but certain factors, like a sign above the light switch saying “Use only in the event of an emergency,” would make her argument sound much more reasonable (Pinto, 2001, p. 61).
The Catholic church, in the 14th to 15th century, sold indulgences, saying that, when bought, upon death a person will get a lesser punishment for his or her sins in exchange for certain services.
According to the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy, is this fallacious?
Daily Double!!
Yes!
The selling of indulgences was used as a scheme for the catholic church to gain money. It's not proven that buying indulgences has actually opened the gateway for one to go to heaven.