Okay, for any who don't know, post hoc ergo propter hoc, which translates as 'after this therefore because of this', essentially describes the human tendency to see two events happening one after the other and connect the two together, making it seem like the first caused the second. A good example would be, 'A rooster always crows just before sunrise, therefore the rooster crowing causes sunrise' wherein, because the rooster crows before sunrise, we think that the sunrise was directly caused by the rooster. Anyway, I was wondering on opinions on this strange piece of logic. Is it good or bad and is there anyway to get past it?
Well obviously it's bad logic, a logical fallacy to be more precise. I don't think there's any way to actually escape these irritating human biases and subconscious fallacies, but you can be aware of them, and recognise them when they arise. Once recognised, you can apply proper logic to a situation, and find the solution that way.
All I have to say is that post hoc ergo propter hoc always brings me back to The West Wing. [YOUTUBE]HL_vHDjG5Wk[/YOUTUBE]
It's difficult to avoid logical fallacies like the one that you mention, but it's a really good idea to familiarise yourself with all the fallacies, so that you can explain why a bad argument is bad. It's also great to iron out fallacies and biases in our own thinking, which isn't easy! This is a fun way of brushing up on the ol' list of fallacies.
be careful with logical fallacies. Some have non-fallacious forms and just because you pointed out that someone's formal or informal argument is flawed does not invalidate their conclusion. you can also make arguments that are valid logically but not sound, etc. it's more complicated than logical fallacies.
I had post hoc ergo porter hoc one time, but my doctor gave me some antibiotics and it clear right up.
Believe it or not, Logic used to be a standard course in high school, it was dropped for reasons that I cannot fathom. I am in a scientific field, and the load of published "peer-reviewed" BS has reached alarming proportions. A good dose of iron-clad logic, and an appreciation of all the ways we can screw up with logical fallacies such as the one the OP mentions is absolutely essential toward getting at the truth (we just aren't very good at it). Here are a few others: Fallacies
I took logic in freshman year of college. It wasn't required exactly, but it was one of two "math" related courses that we were required to choose from.
It's basically hardwired within us, which is why it's hard to overcome. Many other animals do the same thing. Pavlov's dog and whatnot... This is why I like the scientific method in trying to understand phenomena.
I think that post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies actually show how intelligent we are as a species (at least, in relation to other life on Earth :lol. It shows that we actually seek out patterns and some form of logic in our chaotic world. It also is a sign that we sometimes have too much or little information available to make an "accurate" diagnosis, but will nonetheless try to synthesize one with the available resources and data.
It isn't good or bad. In many ways it's human nature. Sometimes it helps us recognize important patterns, other times it causes us to make erroneous and hasty conclusions. But I'd say not being hasty is the main thing here--sometimes you have to look past the conclusions you are almost programmed to make.
