Is this a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? 'The most intense lightning storm ever recorded was followed by many numerous Bushfires; the lightning must have caused them.'
and why?
Thanks for any answers, im really struggling with this.
3
-
Correlation does not imply causation – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 22 at 11:44
-
Correct; also Post hoc ergo propter hoc will do. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 22 at 11:45
-
The thing is, lightning storm are indeed known to cause bushfires, so as David Blomstrom says below, only the "must" is too much (and even then, "must" only denotes very high certainty, not 100%). Post hoc ergo propter hoc would more likely be something with no obvious causation link, like "I won the lottery right after dumping my girl friend, ergo she must have been giving me bad luck all this time". – armand Jan 22 at 14:19
Add a comment
|
For me, this sounds like a borderline fallacy. If the speaker had said "presumably" or "likely" instead of "must," then there probably would be no fallacy at all.
However, the speaker is linking two phenomena together based on coincidental evidence. It turns out there is a fallacy called a questionable-cause logical fallacy.
Bear in mind that many fallacies have multiple names and often overlap with other fallacies. It's therefore possible that there's a better name for this particular fallacy.
answered Jan 22 at 11:44
