Talk:Post hoc ergo propter hoc

message: to include a reference to apophenia both within the text and under the See Also section.  It might be appropriate to amend the coin-finding paragraph to point out that the event was a coinicidence, and the interpretation of the event was an example of apophenia.
As both a relative newcomer to these pages and a non-specialist in this area I invite another reader to make the alteration, if it is felt appropriate.
David Wigram 
:After reading the apophenia article, I don't think it is a pertinent link. Post hoc errors are not random, they are the result of giving correlation strength they don't deserve, like the pirates vs. global warming graph in the Flying Spaghetti Monster page. According to the article, apophenia is not a logical error so much as a neurological condition:
::"Soon after his son committed suicide, Episcopalian Bishop James A. Pike (1913-1969) began seeing meaningful messages in such things as a stopped clock, the angle of an open safety pin, and the angle formed by two postcards lying on the floor. He thought they were conveying the time his son had shot himself (Christopher 1975: 139).".
:This seems a bit stronger than post hoc. There is no false attribution of causality here, so much as recognizing the presence of a meaningful pattern where none exists. Granted, I only just heard of this term now, but I'm pretty confident that this is how it is to be applied. 
:And by the way, I noticed you signed your actual name, indicating you don't have a registered account. I'd suggest setting one up. there's no reason not too, and it makes editing stuff easier. Shaggorama 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I merged Post hoc and Ergo propter hoc into this article. There were examples with each, which have been moved here in favor of a new example (see below).
These examples were from Post hoc:
:A noncontroversial example is "I just washed my car, so of course it began to rain." Rain is not caused by car-washing, but the car owner connects the two events. Cars are washed every day, but it doesn't rain every day.
And:
:This logical fallacy is often used by the media to misreport the results of correlative studies. For example, if a study showed that 70% of kids who played violent video games grew up to be criminals, whereas only 20% of kids who  played nonviolent video games did, the media might report "violent video games make kids into criminals", which is not supported by the evidence. (The criminals may have played violent video games more because they were prone to violent behavior for other reasons. There is no evidence that the games caused their behavior to change.)
Note that the second actually serves better as an example of correlation implies causation (logical fallacy). (But that article seems to have plenty of good examples already.)
This example came from Ergo propter hoc:
:... (often this line of reasoning is found in voodoo or other superstitious beliefs.  For example: "They waved a wand  at me, and I tripped on the stairs."  therefore, tripping on the stairs must have been' caused by the waving of the  wand.  Since causality is created in the observers mind, the resulting event can be conveniently chosen based on what  one believes about the cause.  i.e. for good luck charms, good events will be attributed; for curses, bad events.   The link is observer created.
The above example captures the idea well, but might be considered an offensive stereotype of Voodooism. I have constructed another example for use in the article. Hopefully, it is more neutral.
--Jacius 04:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the  tag to Post hoc and Ergo propter hoc—thanks for doing the actual work. Rafał Pocztarski 01:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples removed from merged articles 

message: In the opening paragraph, we have "Some philosophy books translate the Latin to simply: "If, then therefore, because."  Should this read, "if after, then therefore because"?  I mean, literally it translates as "after this, therefore because of this". -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "If, then therefore, because"? 

message: This section should be removed entierly, as the consequence of mentioning such "facts" in all kind of philosophy articles would certainly cause Wikipedia to perish. As for now, I moved it to a Trivia section. The reference is made in the second episode of the first season.  The title of the episode actually bears the name,
Post Hoc, Ergo Proctor Hoc.  Adam 01:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... removed completely.  Fan cruft.  David Bergan 03:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed again. Its presence at the very top of the page is completely unnecessary and distracting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.183.117 (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Wing 

message: About the link between canabis and heroin, this is a quite bad example : there are many real links between the two kinds of drugs and it's not rare that the pushers sell both products, even both don't have the same effects or dangers. J.
:That's all fine and good but the purpose of this article is not to expand the debate on the relation of cannabis and heroin, but to demonstrate a logical fallacy. In its current form it is in fact a fallacy. It's also useful to demonstrate that even if the statement is true (for other reasons), it's still illogical. Logic doesn't determine what is true, it determines what can accurately be deduced from the stated premises. Aplomado talk 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If cannabis-->heroin is a fallacy, great.  But let's not taint this article by pushing an agenda... put that ref in the cannabis article, and wikilink.  I replaced with a textbook NPOV example.  David Bergan 21:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  canabis 

message: I'm going to reinstate the merge banner... if you noticed it was a banner stating that Magical Thinking should be merged into this article... which means the discussion for it is on the MT talk page.  Join us there if you would like. David Bergan 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mistake HighInBC 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge notification

message: Anyone want to explain how post hoc is an example of AC?  I don't see it, at least not without great artifice. 271828182 09:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  affirming the consequent? 

message: I'm not a religious man myself, but the sentence on prayer seems to me unnecessarily provocative. Surely the article would be just as informative without it, and wouldn't run the same risk of alienating the reader. Would anyone object if I removed it, or replaced it with a less contentious example? TimTim 07:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prayer 

message: I'm curious as to why the Fox News example was removed.  The example was perfectly valid and reasonable, and was not a kneejerk anti-Bush comment.  The example was used because it demonstrates how editorial rhetoric often employs post hoc reasoning.  I think there is a difference between my legitimate example and offensive political speech.  Not only was it deleted, but it was deleted without comment.  Not every mention of Bush or Fox News is a volley in the "culture war." DecayedWisdom 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Fox News example 

message: Not sure that the article needs five examples of the fallacy when 2 (or at most 3) will suffice.  I vote for rooster and autumn leaves, with ice cream in third place.  The diet beverage one is slightly confusing, and the pirate one is utterly retarded.  David Bergan 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, we could use two of the sourced examples I gave above in the section "realistic example that one might find in real life".  Either way, this article isn't meant to be a dumping ground of anyone's personal favorite flaws in reasoning.  David Bergan 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Five examples?

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The Asia Times Online story Iraq's 'surge' has its limits dated July 31, 2008, quotes extensively (with attribution) from the present article. I'm unsure if there is a corresponding template for this type of use. In any case, it should be of interest to those who have worked on this so far. __meco (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article text reused in newspaper story 

message: Could someone please provide a simple explanation for the similar phrase, post hoc non ergo propter hoc? Clearly enough it is a negative to post hoc ergo propter hoc, but the sense of the negation is not at all clear, especially to those who have not studied Latin, which I suspect is the majority of people.
I encountered the phrase in the Annie Dillard book, The Maytrees. Not understanding it from context, I looked it up here, was redirected to this article, and am still not real clear on the meaning.
Typofixer76 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When a magician in antiquity did a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc, then it was likely that an angry philosopher came forth screaming ", stulte!", if he was latinate. Post after hoc this ergo therefore propter because of hoc this. Non means not and stulte you stupid-head. In greek i don't know. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post hoc non ergo propter hoc 

message: Just to be a pedantic bugger about it, as I'm in that kind of mood...
I know it's a classical example, but it always irks me, always has and will. It's easy to solve. You merely need to decide which camp you're in: Evolutionist, or Creationist (bear with me!).
Evolutionist: Consider Dinosaurs, lizards and etcetera. Eggs came millions of years before the Chicken, the first "true" one of which would have hatched from its own egg a mere few tens of thousands of years ago somewhere in the east indies.
Creationist: Consider Genesis. Chickens were presumably brought into being by God, hence coming before the eggs they then laid (not being made during the Genesis event). Though it's been a while since I read those particular passages, and I could be wrong.
We need to find a better "can't tell which one should come first" endless loop :) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you asked, Wendalore, I would answer re chicken vs egg: egg, as chickens evolved from dinosaurs and dinosaurs laid eggs i.e there were eggs before there were chickens.  The question of which came first the chicken or the chicken egg is meaningless because as you say chicken eggs evolved coincidently with chickens (and vice versa!).  The problem with the question of speed and furniture, is different in that neither has speed as an innate characteristic.  If you dropped the two from an aircraft then it would come down to aerodynamics, otherwise it would come down to the size of the motor you strapped on them, or then again ....  The question regarding fruit fails becaause it turns on a characteristic that is undefined: better for what? at what etc?  None of this relates to post hoc ergo propter hoc though. LookingGlass (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicken and Egg 

message: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc is mentioned in the second episode of The West Wing as seen in Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Video Discription:
Additional:
*http://westwing.bewarne.com/2posthoc.html
*http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html
--Fresh Start (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  popular culture? (or something of the like) 

message: In John Pilger's documentary 'The War on Democracy', during an interview with Roger Noriega (US Assistant Secretary of State), Noriega attempts to deflect Pilger's point saying that it is a logical fallacy - 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'.  Pilger asks him to explain.  Noriega says that just because the US provided funding to organisations that later attempted to overthrow the government of Venezuela, it doesn't follow that it happened *because* they provided the funding.  This is interesting as an example - partly because the logical fallacy is actually named and described.  It is also interesting because of the rhetorical trick Noriega himself seems to be using: reinterpreting Pilger's argument, which is about probable causality or degree (perhaps the funding tipped the balance? or made it easier?) and moral responsibility (should the US be funding coup plotters?) into one of formal logic.
The documentary is available online here (this segment is about 37-38 minutes in):
http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-on-democracy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.194.77 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talk page misuse (burn it!). lesion (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The War on Democracy 

message: I know there are probably several sayings in different social contexts related to this fallacy.  One I've heard from friends in the medical field is "True, true, unrelated" (eg, the patient saw a dog, comes down with the flu, but it is not likely that the dog caused the flu - even though they may narrate the events to the doctor with this implication).  If people submit other common references to this fallacy, may be worth having a section for the readers' information..?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.110.154 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related expressions 

message: I feel the article could benefit from some background about its history, fisrt recorded use etc. Thanks. lesion (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the term 

message: Sheldon Cooper used it in an episode of The Big Bang Theory  
85.83.19.103 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in popular entertainment 

message: There is an article on wiki titled Fallacy - about fallacious reasoning not simply fallacies - so there is no imperative to merge cum hoc ergo propter hochere (anymore than to merge condor with eagle though they are similar).   It seems to me that cum hoc ergo propter hoc deserves its own article.  I would do this but wonder itth the mergers wouldn't merge it back.
De-mergeing would focus this article more clearly on the argument post hoc ergo propter hoc, of which there are some interesting examples here http://www.outofthefog.net/Treatment/PostHocErgoPropterHoc.html  While the first of these clearly illustrates the fallacy the others illustrate that statements in this form are not fallacies merely because of being stated in this form, something that could perhaps be made clearer here.  
# A train always passes after the railroad crossing alarm sounds and the gates come down. Therefore the railroad crossing causes the train to pass.
# I wore my purple sweater and my team won against all the odds. Therefore I am going to wear that sweater to every game.
# Most divorced couples go to see a therapist before they separate. Therefore going to see a therapist will increase the chances that you will get a divorce.
# Children of divorce, on average, perform poorer academically. Therefore, if you get a divorce you will hurt your child's chances of going to college.
# Since we moved in together she has become very depressed. I feel like I've ruined her life.
# Since I stopped smoking we haven't had an argument. Who knew the answer could have been so simple?
The article could perhaps address how it is reconciled with statistical proof.
LookingGlass (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-merge and clarify 

message: The phrase post hoc, ergo proctor hoc is not a false statement but a refutation of a false statement.
Well, ok, read literally, it is a false statement. But it is sad ironically, and meant to be read that way. Ironic in the classical sense of the word, meaning the opposite of what it says. (Yes, the original definition of irony, back when people spoke ancient Latin, is a rhetorical technique and a form of humor used to emphasize a point or to make it comical by saying the opposite of what you mean; it’s a flourish.)
So this posting should be fixed to emphasize that. Post hoc . . . (and  cum hoc. . .) are rhetorical flourishes arguing against that which they literally appear to be stating. 
Cheers. 204.111.113.41 (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This posting is erroneous