Critical Thinking #10: Post Hoc Fallacy

17 thoughts on “Critical Thinking #10: Post Hoc Fallacy”

  1. I used to think that correlation implied causation, then I took a course on statistics and logic, now I realize that this is not true. So the course helped? I'm not sure….

  2. Also, remember that correlation does not equal causation. This is also one of the first things you learn in statistics.

  3. Post-hocking: Every religious ritual ever devised. Huh, I never would've guessed there was a well established term for that…

  4. You would be an actual credible newsperson if you actually followed your own advice and avoided things like strawmanning and ad hom attacks but I know you won't. Lying liars will continue lying.

  5. Another way to put this: subsequence does not always mean consequence. In fact, a related fallacy I hope he covers is the fallacy that correlation must imply causation.

  6. Good stuff. You should do a series exposing the fallacious shit Trump and the Trumpanzees spew.

  7. Actually is the looming of the sun that causes the rooster to cry, the rooster detects the very dim light in the sky more than half an hour before the sun is evidently showing on the horizon.

  8. I feel as though more needs to be said. Every scientific theory starts with an inkling, and often dots are connected that many miss (or it's a stretch for most to believe) but then theories are investigated for probability, accuracy and reproduction. Is the fallacy stopping at the inkling and just assuming the theory is right? or is the whole process a fallacy because you start with the inkling? I just feel like the examples in this video and in the comments are missing something very important. Post hoc fallacies seem to be the first step of every scientific discovery. People who believe this type of fallacy are just on their first step of discovering the truth. Hypothetically, someone who believed the vaccine thing could test all the vaccines in the world and discover what the vaccines were actually doing. Someone who believed that chickens bring the sun might kill all chickens to find that chickens had nothing to do with the sun. It may be a fallacy to stop at the first step, but i feel as though it is a very necessary part of discovering truths. Everybody makes mistakes. I fear everybody is so willing to shut another person down because they might be on this first step, and then the truth will never be revealed. This of course depends on the person making the journey and if they are even willing to change their minds.

  9. That argument can lend itself to the CO2 causing global warming… All because its noted in sample cores, from which exact dates cannot be defined. Just because there's CO2 captured in the samples, doesn't mean that CO2 caused the ice, came before and thus created climate chaos. However we do know that lack of sunspots decreases the earth's albedo, increases volcanism, decreases earth's magnetic shielding, thus allowing more cosmic rays to heat up said earth, even during times of low CO2.. The creation of more clouds from cosmic rays and heating up of upper atmosphere, can heat the poles significantly, but not over 0 deg C. releasing fresh water which is less dense, and disrupting the ocean circulation patterns. More rain, snow, freezing temps in uncommon areas, decreases the CO2, which we've seen in data, instead of increasing.

  10. I am in year 10 (Grade 9) and i actually attend debate club and this helped thanks and an interesting intellectual debunking of misinterpretations

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *