In this article we will address the topic of Post hoc ergo propter hoc, an issue of current relevance that has sparked great interest and debate. Post hoc ergo propter hoc has been the subject of studies, analysis and reflections by experts in the field, as well as people interested in better understanding its impact and scope. Over the years, Post hoc ergo propter hoc has evolved and acquired different nuances, making it an extremely complex and multidimensional matter. In this sense, it is crucial to delve into its most relevant aspects, its implications and possible repercussions at an individual and collective level. In this article, we will delve into the universe of Post hoc ergo propter hoc, addressing its multiple facets with the aim of providing a comprehensive and enriching vision of this topic that is so relevant today.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy which one commits when one reasons, "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is a fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event merely on the grounds of temporal succession. This type of reasoning is fallacious because mere temporal succession does not establish a causal connection. It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical fallacy in which one event seems to be the cause of a later event because it occurred earlier.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because correlation sometimes appears to suggest causality. The fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an easy fallacy to detect when it is blatant, but even the best of scientists and statesmen are occasionally misled by it.
The form of the post hoc fallacy is expressed as follows:
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often combined with the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, assuming the logical inverse holds: believing that avoiding A will prevent B.