The post hoc ergo propter hoc or post-hoc error is a logical error that occurs when someone assumes that an event must have caused a subsequent event simply because it occurred after another. Post: `post hoc ergo propter hoc` in Oxford Reference » Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: `after, so therefore`) is an informal error that states: “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.” It is often simply reduced to a post-hoc fallacy. As a logical error of the questionable variety of causes, it differs subtly from the hoc ergo propter hoc error (“with this, that is, because of that”), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological order is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical error where an event appears to be the cause of a subsequent event because it occurred earlier. [1] Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a form of error that implies that event 1 occurs after event 2, so event 2 must have caused event 1. Of course, this is not always the case, but this form of error is still prevalent in various situations. From: post hoc ergo propter hoc in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy » Post hoc ergo propter hoc comes from the Latin language and directly means translated “after, therefore so”, which gives us an overview of what it is. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a kind of error that gives the impression that one event was the cause of another due to successive events. This error is used in many ways, such as publicity and debate.
There are many forms of errors in the English language, one of which is post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is used quite often. While this may sound like a complex concept, it`s really not in this article, we`re going to take a close look at what post hoc ergo propter hoc is and how it`s used to give you a better idea of how to recognize it. We will also look at a selection of examples to better understand its function. Pele, the legend of Brazilian football, has already given his match shirt to his fan, and soon after, his playing performance began to deteriorate. The form of the post-hoc error is expressed as follows: The error of arguing that because one event after another occurred, it happened because of it. That, of course, I always gave to the Führer to send the letter when he came to the trading post. The post-hoc error is based on the misconception that since event B followed event A, event A must have caused event B. Such reasoning is logically misleading, because the fact that event A occurred earlier does not necessarily mean that it was the cause. He believed it was because he had lost his beloved shirt, so he asked his friend to find it. And after the jersey was returned to him, his performance actually recovered. The post-hoc error seems to have its origins in Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, which is one of the thirteen original errors he identified in his book Rhetoric. He wrote the following: The post-hoc error is the basis of a plethora of false beliefs.
In particular, many superstitions are based on it. For example, one can conclude that something bad must have happened to them because it was Friday the 13th, or because earlier that day they broke a mirror or walked under a ladder. Note that events that occur sequentially may very well be causally related, but they can also be completely independent, aside from the fact that the other occurred one after the other (or “correlation does not imply causation”). As human beings, we naturally want to know and discover the causes of events that are important to us, which often leads us to become victims of post-hoc considerations. It certainly seems that this particular shirt was really behind Pele`s poor form. What his friend didn`t tell him, however, was that they couldn`t find the original shirt, so they came back with just another shirt. The post hoc is a particularly tempting error, as the correlation sometimes seems to indicate a causal link. The error lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than considering other factors that may be responsible for the result and could exclude the link. [2] For example, if you drink a glass of water and have a headache soon after, it doesn`t necessarily mean that your headache must have been caused by the glass of water you had. The reason may – and in this case, it is more likely – be something completely different.
In the wake of this turmoil, the New York Post reported that the police had ceased their policing activities. This way of thinking is the basis of various types of beliefs, superstitions, and false discoveries in the search for the causes of certain diseases. When B is undesirable, this pattern is often combined with the formal error of denying the previous one, assuming that the logical opposite is true: avoiding A prevents B.[4] A simple example is “the rooster crows just before sunrise; That is why the rooster lets the sun rise. » [3].