False Cause
An informal fallacy where you argue that because event A directly preceded event B, that event A caused event B. That is, because the two events correlate, that this then implies causation. This can also be thought of as a perceived relationship between two things that doesn't necessarily imply that one is the cause of the other. Clearly, this is a flawed position as correlation doesn't always imply causation. However, it is true that sometimes the correlation is due to underlying causal effects, but this can only be discerned through additional inquiry.
This fallacy is also known as the following:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (i.e., “after this, therefore because of this”)
Faulty causation
The fallacy of false cause
Arguing from succession alone or assumed causation
Logical Form
Event B follows event A.
Therefore, event A caused event B.
Or
Event A and event B are correlated.
Therefore, one is the cause of the other.
The shifty eyes on the little girl immediately following the observation that the house is burning down doesn’t automatically mean that she is the cause of the fire. That is, the correlation between the shifty eyes and the house being on fire doesn’t imply guilt.
Examples
The following abbreviations are used in the examples below:
PN = The Nth premise for N = 1,2,3,…. (e.g., P1 is the first premise, P2 is the second premise, etc.)
C = Conclusion
1) One of the perennial arguments coming from the anti-vaccine community is in regards to vaccination being linked to autism. The argument goes something like this:
P1: My son/daughter, nephew/niece, etc. recently had their MMR vaccine.
P2: Shortly after receiving the vaccine they developed symptoms of autism.
C: Therefore, vaccines cause autism.
Explanation: We know through volumes of evidence at this point that vaccines do NOT cause autism [1]. Hence, this is simply a case of people attributing causation to vaccines when the two events happen to correlate sometimes. In argument form, this is the false cause fallacy.
2) When I was a child, as I think is the case for most children and even many adults, I entertained the existence of ghosts. In particular, shortly after my great-grandmother passed away, I noticed odd things happening around my house. These oddities ranged from noises to the movement of objects. Consequently, I had convinced myself that these odd observations were a result of my grandmother's ghost. The argument that I told myself went something like this:
P1: Great-grandma just passed away.
P2: There are odd occurrences around the house that I cannot explain.
C: Thus, this odd behavior is a result of grandmother's ghost.
Explanation: I was clearly falling victim to the false cause fallacy here as I was attributing any odd observations around my house to my grandmother's ghost as she had just passed. What is more, we don't have any credible scientific evidence to suggest that ghosts actually exist and are not merely just figments of our imagination.
3) You often find superstitious types of behavior within sports. From lucky rabbits feet to choosing never to wash socks, sports of all types have individuals engaging in this type of behavior. For example, consider a young man by the name of Bill who is an avid Chicago Black Hawks fan. One day, he was watching a game with his family and was sitting at a particular spot at the dinner table during the game. The Black Hawks ended up losing that particular game that Bill wanted them badly to win and due to this loss, he decided to blame the position at the dinner table that he was sitting at. Since that particular loss, he refuses to sit at that particular position at the dinner table as he's convinced that it's “bad luck.” That is, his sitting at that particular seat at one point during the game is to blame for the loss. This narrative in argument form is:
P1: The Chicago Black Hawks lost the game.
P2: During the game I was sitting at position x at the dinner table.
C: Hence, position x is responsible for the Black Hawks loss and is “bad luck” in general.
Explanation: Bill is attributing the Blackhawk's loss to where he sat during the game. There are no credible scenarios that come to mind that would remotely support the hypothesis that where you sit in your home during a game would have any impact on a hockey team's performance. Clearly, Bill is falsely assigning blame to the seat for the loss.
4) Towards the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine was promoted by President Trump as a possible treatment despite the warnings from the vast majority of the scientific community that there wasn't sufficient evidence to make such claims. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with the President, he chose not to listen and continued to promote it anyway. At one point, Trump made the following statement [2]:
“Well, I've heard tremendous reports about it. Frankly, I've heard tremendous reports. Many people think it saved their lives. Doctors come out with reports. You had a study in France, you had a study in Italy that were incredible studies”
In particular, let's break this statement apart and re-organize it into standard form, while remembering to be charitable:
P1: I've heard really great things about the effects of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19.
P2: Many people think it has saved their lives.
P3: There is a scientific study from France as well as from Italy that support the hypothesis that hydroxychloroquine is a viable treatment option for COVID-19.
C: Therefore, hydroxychloroquine should be used to treat COVID-19.
Now, zooming in on P2, we can charitably reconstruct the argument that these individuals told themselves to arrive at the conclusion that it was hydroxychloroquine that was responsible for saving their lives:
P1: I have contracted COVID-19.
P2: I was given hydroxychloroquine as treatment.
P3: I recovered.
C: Thus, it was the hydroxychloroquine that saved my life.
Explanation: Examining this second argument, how do they know definitively that it was the hydroxychloroquine that saved their life? In general, when admitted to the hospital for COVID-19, there are a number of therapies used in order to ensure the patient's survival. It is fallacious to then isolate just one of the therapies and say that this is what was responsible for recovery. At the very least, they should attribute the recovery to the confluence of therapies even if some of those therapies have never demonstrated to be effective. Simply put, just because they took hydroxychloroquine when they were ill doesn't mean that this was the therapy responsible for their recovery. This is what scientific studies are for. Moreover, you always have the placebo effect at play, which is why controlled scientific studies are so important for determining efficacy. Clearly, these individuals are committing the false cause fallacy in this argument, which renders it bad. Furthermore, these patients’ anecdotes are the weakest form of evidence, which is yet another reason to dismiss this argument.
Now, returning to the first argument, there are scientific studies that have been conducted to determine if hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment against COVID-19. To date, examining the entirety of the evidence points to it not being effective and possibly injurious [3].
Last, examining argument one in its entirety, we can say that premise one is true as he then goes on to expound in the other premises what these “great things” are. Note, if it was the only premise, the argument could be made that he was committing an appeal to popularity fallacy as simply mentioning that you’ve heard “great things” from “many people” isn't sufficient evidence to accept a conclusion. Next, premise two is false as I've just explained. Furthermore, the studies that Trump is referring to did not sufficiently support the hypothesis that hydroxychloroquine is a viable treatment option for COVID-19. It was premature for anyone to be saying that as more studies were needed and he was rightfully castigated by the scientific community over his comments. Thus, premise three is false, which means that the two primary premises are false, which is enough to render the argument bad as premise one cannot support this argument on its own. Hence, the argument should be rejected.
Conclusion
As is always the case, if you find yourself confronted with this fallacy in everyday discourse, it is important to remember that it renders the argument bad and should be rejected. What is more, if you find yourself using this fallacy within one of your own arguments, as an individual who ascribes to the ideology of Critical Thinking, you must replace it with a good argument.
References
[2] Timm, Jane C. Trump says he's no longer taking hydroxychloroquine. CBS News. May 25, 2020.