Ever notice that 'Coulter' and 'fat' threads run together?

[CornField]

It seems everytime people have a lot to say about her... fat threads begin to pop up shortly thereafter. Is it because she appears so thin as to be unhealthy?

[KingFlorez]

1. It's because she doesn't eat

Maybe if she ate some good food, she'd shut her mouth for awhile

[Trajan]

2. Sheeeeh ....

What fallacious nonsense ...

[Mr_Spock]

3. ?

?

[Trajan]

4. ? ...

Non Causa Pro Causa

Translation: "Non-cause for cause" (Latin)

Alias: False Cause

Type: Informal Fallacy

Exposition:

This is the most general fallacy of reasoning to conclusions about causality. Some authors describe it as inferring that something is the cause of something else when it isn't, an interpretation encouraged by the fallacy's names. However, inferring a false causal relation is often just a mistake, and it can be the result of reasoning which is as cogent as can be, since all reasoning to causal conclusions is ultimately inductive. Instead, to be fallacious, a causal argument must violate the canons of good reasoning about causation in some common or deceptive way. Thus, to understand causal fallacies, we must understand how causal reasoning works, and the ways in which it can go awry.

Causal conclusions can take one of two forms:

1. Event-Level: Sometimes we wish to know the cause of a particular event, for instance, a physician conducting a medical examination is inquiring into the cause of a particular patient's illness. Specific events are caused by other specific events, so the conclusion we aim at in this kind of causal reasoning has the form:

Event C caused event E.

Mistakes about event-level causation are the result of confusing coincidence with causation. Event C may occur at the same time as event E, or just before it, without being the cause of E. It may simply be happenstance that these two events occurred at about the same time. In order to find the correct event that caused an effect, we must reason from a causal law, which introduces the next level of causal reasoning:

2. Type-Level: A causal law has the form:

Events of type C cause events of type E.

Here, we are not talking about a causal relation holding between two particular events, but the general causal relation holding between instances of two types of event. For example, when we say that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, we are not talking about an individual act of smoking causing a particular case of lung cancer. Rather, we mean that smoking is a type of event which causes another type of event, namely, cancer.

Mistakes about type-level causation are the result of confusing correlation with causation. Two types of event may occur simultaneously, or one type always following the other type, without there being a causal relation between them. One common source of non-causal correlations between two event-types is when both are effects of a third type of event. For examples of causal fallacies, see the Subfallacies of Non Causa Pro Causa:

Subfallacies:

* Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
* Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
* The Regression Fallacy
* Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

-------------

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Translation: "After this, therefore because of this" (Latin)

Type: Non Causa Pro Causa
Forms
Event C happened immediately prior to event E.
Therefore, C caused E. Events of type C happen immediately prior to events of type E.
Therefore, events of type C cause events of type E.

Examples
The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically. Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. …vidence shows that even state and local handgun control laws work. For example, in 1974 Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox Law, which requires a special license to carry a handgun outside the home or business. The law is supported by a mandatory prison sentence. Studies by Glenn Pierce and William Bowers of Northeastern University documented that after the law was passed handgun homicides in Massachusetts fell 50% and the number of armed robberies dropped 35%.
Source: "The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership", The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000. Source: "Fact Card", Handgun Control, Inc.

Analysis of the Examples
Counter-Example:

Roosters crow just before the sun rises.
Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise.

Exposition:

The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its "effect". Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition. Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.

Exposure:

Post Hoc also manifests itself as a bias towards jumping to conclusions based upon coincidences. Superstition and magical thinking include Post Hoc thinking; for instance, when a sick person is treated by a witch doctor, or a faith healer, and becomes better afterward, superstitious people conclude that the spell or prayer was effective. Since most illnesses will go away on their own eventually, any treatment will seem effective by Post Hoc thinking. This is why it is so important to test proposed remedies carefully, rather than jumping to conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence.

Sibling Fallacy: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

-------------

Question mark ?

? ...........