Hubbry Logo
Questionable causeQuestionable causeMain
Open search
Questionable cause
Community hub
Questionable cause
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Questionable cause
Questionable cause
Questionable cause
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The questionable cause—also known as causal fallacy, false cause, or non causa pro causa ("non-cause for cause" in Latin)—is a category of informal fallacies in which the cause or causes is/are incorrectly identified. In other words, it is a fallacy of reaching a conclusion that one thing caused another, simply because they are regularly associated.

Questionable cause can be logically reduced to: "A is regularly associated with B; therefore, A causes B."[1]

For example: "Every time I score an A on the test its a sunny day. Therefore the sunny day causes me to score well on the test." Here is the example the two events may coincide or correlate, but have no causal connection.[2]

Fallacies of questionable cause include:

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Questionable cause

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Questionable cause is a type of informal logical wherein a causal relationship is incorrectly assumed between two or more events, variables, or phenomena based on insufficient , such as mere , temporal sequence, or oversimplification of complex factors. This error, also known as the false cause , leads to invalid conclusions by mistaking association for causation, ignoring alternative explanations, common causes, or the possibility of . The questionable cause fallacy encompasses several subtypes, each highlighting different ways causation can be misattributed. For instance, ("after this, therefore because of this") occurs when one event is presumed to cause another simply because it precedes it in time, as in the claim that wearing a certain color caused a sports team to win because the victory followed the act. Another subtype, cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"), assumes causation from simultaneous occurrences, such as arguing that rising sales cause increased rates during hot summers, overlooking the shared influence of heat. Additional variants include the , which attributes an outcome to one factor while neglecting multiple contributing elements, and the , where independent random events are wrongly seen as influencing future outcomes, like expecting a flip to "balance" after several heads. These subtypes demonstrate how the fallacy arises from flawed rather than deliberate deception. Recognized since ancient times, questionable cause has been discussed by philosophers like in his , where he identified errors in attributing causes based on sequence, and later by in his work on inductive logic, emphasizing the need for rigorous tests to establish true causation. In modern contexts, it frequently appears in scientific research, media reporting, and everyday arguments, contributing to , policy missteps, and misleading correlations in fields like or —for example, early assumptions linking vaccines to unrelated health issues due to temporal associations. Avoiding this fallacy requires applying principles like those in of agreement and difference to verify causal links, ensuring arguments rely on rather than superficial patterns.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition

The questionable cause fallacy, also known as the false cause fallacy, is an informal logical in which a causal relationship is inferred from insufficient or misleading , such as mere , temporal succession, or spatial or associative proximity between events, without adequate proof of causation. This error arises when the argument presumes one event or factor directly produces another based on weak evidential links, overlooking alternative explanations or the absence of a demonstrable mechanism. At its core, the fallacy's structure involves assuming that A causes B due to superficial connections like A occurring before B (temporal proximity), alongside B (simultaneity), or near B (spatial or occasional association), without verifying necessity (A must occur for B), sufficiency (A alone produces B), or an explanatory mechanism linking them. The prototypical logical form is: "A preceded or coincided with B; therefore, A caused B," which is invalid as it conflates association with causation and ignores confounding variables or reverse causality. A specific subtype, post hoc ergo propter hoc, emphasizes the temporal sequence aspect of this form. This fallacy must be distinguished from valid , which demands systematic evaluation beyond mere observation, such as the for establishing causation in empirical contexts. These criteria include (exposure precedes outcome), strength of association, consistency across studies, specificity, biological gradient (dose-response), plausibility, coherence with existing knowledge, experimental evidence, and analogy, serving as prerequisites to rule out spurious links.

Key Characteristics

Questionable cause arguments are primarily characterized by their reliance on observed or temporal sequences to infer without adequate supporting . This assumes that because two events are associated—either occurring together or one following the other—the first must cause the second, overlooking the fundamental distinction between and . Such inferences often ignore alternative explanations, such as coincidental occurrences or third-party factors that might independently influence both events. For instance, cum hoc ergo propter hoc exemplifies this through coincidental mistaken for causal links. Evidential weaknesses in questionable cause reasoning include a to control for variables, possibilities of reverse causation—where the supposed actually precedes or influences the cause—or bidirectional influences between the events. These arguments frequently prioritize or isolated observations over rigorous empirical testing, such as controlled experiments or statistical analysis that could establish true causal directionality. Without isolating variables or ruling out spurious associations, the claimed causal relationship remains unsubstantiated and prone to error. Psychologically, questionable cause stems from human tendencies toward causal illusions, where individuals perceive nonexistent causal connections due to cognitive biases. , for example, leads people to overestimate relationships between unrelated phenomena based on memorable or salient instances. exacerbates this by prompting selective attention to information that supports a preconceived causal narrative while disregarding contradictory . Additionally, the contributes by encouraging judgments based on superficial resemblances rather than probabilistic reasoning, fostering erroneous inferences about cause and effect. These biases are well-documented in psychological research as drivers of flawed causal attributions in everyday . In rhetorical contexts, questionable cause appears in persuasive language, , and to imply unproven causal links that bolster ideological or commercial agendas. By exploiting intuitive assumptions about and effect, such arguments simplify complex phenomena, making them appealing for manipulation but ultimately misleading without empirical validation. This deployment often evades scrutiny by relying on emotional appeal rather than logical rigor, perpetuating in public discourse.

Types of Questionable Cause

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase translating to "after this, therefore because of this," describing a in which causation is inferred solely from the temporal sequence of events. This error assumes that because event A precedes event B in time, A must have caused B, without establishing a genuine causal mechanism. The concept of inferring causation from temporal sequence has roots in and was discussed by in terms of false causes in his Sophistical Refutations, while the specific term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" appears in later works like the Port-Royal Logic (1662), which highlighted it as a common flaw in . Logically, the presents an invalid : if A occurs followed by B, then A causes B. This reasoning fails because temporal succession does not imply causation; alternative explanations such as , a third intervening factor, or the natural progression of events may account for B independently of A. For instance, analyzed it in 1843 as a hasty that overlooks multiple potential causes, emphasizing the need for controlled to validate causal claims. The commonly arises in superstitions, where individuals attribute success to preceding rituals, such as wearing a specific item before a positive outcome, ignoring random chance. In medical contexts, it manifests in anecdotal reports where recovery follows treatment, presuming the treatment's efficacy without considering or effects. Policy arguments also frequently invoke it, claiming that societal improvements after a stem directly from that , disregarding confounding variables like economic cycles. Subtle variations include single-instance post hoc errors, based on isolated observations, versus repeated sequences that foster illusory patterns, such as believing a routine action influences unrelated future events due to occasional correlations. Unlike cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which errs in assuming causation from simultaneous co-occurrences, post hoc specifically hinges on chronological order.

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," is a subtype of the questionable cause in which causation is erroneously inferred from the mere simultaneous occurrence or of two events or variables, without establishing a direct causal link. This fallacy arises when observers assume that because two phenomena coincide in time or space, one must be causing the other, overlooking alternative explanations. The logical flaws in cum hoc ergo propter hoc stem primarily from spurious correlations, where apparent associations result from variables, random chance, or common underlying causes rather than true . For instance, variables can create misleading links by influencing both observed factors independently; ignoring base rates or succumbing to further exacerbates these pitfalls, as does failing to account for in large datasets. Such errors lead to invalid causal claims because correlation alone provides no of mechanism, necessity, or directionality. This fallacy commonly appears in , where observational data might show correlations like increased consumption alongside rising incidents, both driven by seasonal temperature rather than any direct effect of . In , it manifests in trends such as the observed between rising U.S. ethanol production and gasoline prices from 2002 to 2012, which was spurious due to parallel upward trends unrelated to causation. Social myths also perpetuate it, as seen in claims tying astrological alignments to personal events, where alignments coincide with life occurrences by chance alone. Differentiating true correlations from this fallacy requires rigorous validation through experimental controls, such as randomized trials to isolate variables, or multivariate analysis to adjust for confounders and test causal hypotheses. Unlike post hoc ergo propter hoc, which involves sequential events, cum hoc focuses on concurrent ones within the broader questionable cause family.

Other Variants

Additional subtypes of the questionable cause fallacy include the fallacy of the single cause, which attributes a complex outcome to a single factor while ignoring the interplay of multiple contributing elements, such as blaming economic downturns solely on one policy without considering global factors. Another variant is the gambler's fallacy, where patterns in independent random events are mistakenly believed to influence future probabilities, for example, expecting a roulette wheel to land on red after several blacks to "even out," despite each spin being independent.

Examples and Applications

Historical Examples

In ancient Greek philosophy, Aristotle's cosmological framework illustrated a questionable cause fallacy through the assumption that planetary motions directly caused earthly events, inferred from observed correlations between celestial patterns and terrestrial phenomena. In his Meteorology, Aristotle posited that the sun, moon, and stars generate hot and dry exhalations that drive weather changes and other sublunary processes, treating regular alignments as causal agents without establishing mechanistic independence from mere coincidence. This approach conflated correlation—such as seasonal shifts aligning with solar positions—with definitive causation, influencing subsequent natural philosophy for centuries. During the medieval period, the humoral theory of medicine exemplified questionable cause by linking planetary positions to onset through coincidental timings, assuming astrological influences disrupted of bodily humors. Rooted in Galenic traditions and extended by medieval astrologers, practitioners believed that alignments of the zodiac affected the four humors (, , yellow , and black ), causing illnesses when humors became imbalanced; for instance, lunar phases were correlated with fluctuations in , leading to prescriptions timed by celestial charts. Such beliefs persisted because observed patterns often coincided with planetary movements, mistaking temporal associations for causal effects without controlled verification. In the , promoted a questionable cause by asserting that variations in shape reflected the development of specific regions responsible for personality traits and intellectual capacities, based solely on observed associations between cranial features and behaviors. Developed by and Johann Gaspar Spurzheim, the claimed that enlarged brain regions for faculties like combativeness or benevolence produced corresponding skull protrusions, allowing practitioners to diagnose character from head measurements; this inference reversed causation, assuming structural correlations implied deterministic effects on mental qualities. gained widespread acceptance in and America, influencing and until discredited by empirical refutations in the mid-19th century. Early 20th-century discussions of and disease also involved questionable cause, as initial correlations between and ailments were frequently dismissed as post hoc coincidences rather than causal links. Reports from the early 20th century, such as that by Isaac Adler in , noted higher rates among smokers but were often attributed to confounding factors like or urban pollution, delaying causal acknowledgment until epidemiological studies in the . This dismissal exemplified cum hoc ergo propter hoc in reverse, rejecting a valid as non-causal without sufficient . Questionable cause fallacies contributed to significant historical events, including European and colonial witch hunts, where misfortunes following accusations were interpreted as proof of sorcery via post hoc reasoning. In the of 1692, deaths or illnesses shortly after disputes or curses were taken as evidence of , fueling executions despite lack of causal proof; similar logic drove thousands of trials across 16th- and 17th-century . In colonial contexts, settlers attributed disasters like epidemics to native practices, such as rituals coinciding with outbreaks, reinforcing superstitions like the "Indian curse" and justifying displacement.

Modern Examples

In the field of scientific research, a prominent example of questionable cause involves claims linking the , , and (MMR) vaccine to autism spectrum disorder, stemming from a 1998 study by and colleagues that observed symptoms appearing after vaccination in 12 children. This temporal association suggested causation, but the study was later retracted due to ethical violations, data manipulation, and lack of evidence for a causal link, with subsequent large-scale epidemiological studies finding no such connection. The post hoc reasoning fueled widespread , illustrating how initial correlations in small samples can mislead perceptions despite rigorous refutations. In media and , detox diets are often promoted for based on anecdotal reports where individuals attribute rapid reductions to the cleanse rather than underlying or changes. Proponents cite coincidental outcomes, such as feeling lighter after a juice fast, as proof of elimination aiding fat loss, but scientific reviews confirm the body's liver and kidneys handle naturally, with no empirical support for these diets' unique efficacy beyond basic caloric deficits. Similarly, cryptocurrency frequently employs questionable cause by tying market surges to unrelated events, like a 2017 Bitcoin price spike following regulatory announcements, where investors assumed the news directly caused the boom without considering broader speculative momentum. Policy discussions on social issues provide another arena, as seen in attributions of the 1990s U.S. crime rate decline to "broken windows" policing strategies, such as those implemented in under Mayor , while overlooking concurrent reductions in childhood lead exposure from phased-out additives. Longitudinal analyses indicate lead's neurotoxic effects on impulse control and aggression explain much of the drop, with crime rates falling nationwide even in areas without aggressive policing reforms, highlighting cum hoc correlations mistaken for policy impacts. In the digital age, algorithms exacerbate questionable cause by amplifying illusory correlations through echo chambers, where repeated exposure to fringe content creates false perceptions of widespread support for , such as viral claims tying unrelated health symptoms to technology during the . These platforms' recommendation systems prioritize engagement, fostering the where users perceive repeated, unverified links—like causing autism—as factual due to algorithmic reinforcement rather than . This dynamic has propelled misinformation campaigns, underscoring the need for algorithmic transparency to mitigate such biases.

Detection and Prevention

Identifying Indicators

Temporal indicators serve as primary red flags for questionable cause fallacies, particularly in reasoning, where an event preceding another is assumed to have caused it without evidence of a causal mechanism. For instance, claiming that a policy change caused economic improvement solely because it was implemented beforehand ignores potential confounding variables like market trends. Similarly, in cum hoc ergo propter hoc, simultaneous occurrences are misinterpreted as causal, such as asserting that sales cause attacks because both rise in summer, overlooking the shared influence of warm weather. Evidential red flags include a lack of in the causal claim, where no testable mechanism links the purported cause to , and the dismissal of counterexamples or alternative explanations. Arguments relying on anecdotes rather than controlled often exhibit this, as personal stories fail to account for broader patterns or third-party causes. Additionally, ignoring regression to the mean—where extreme events naturally moderate over time—can lead to false attributions of causation to unrelated interventions. Argumentative cues frequently involve loaded phrases that imply causality without substantiation, such as "ever since X occurred, Y has followed" or "X and Y always go hand in hand," which emphasize sequence or over evidence. These linguistic patterns signal an overreliance on observed associations, often amplified by , where supporting instances are highlighted while disconfirming ones are overlooked. Diagnostic tools for detection include probing questions like "What other factors could explain the observed relationship?" to uncover hidden variables, or "Does the causal claim hold if the sequence is reversed?" to test directionality. Further inquiries, such as "Is there beyond timing or co-occurrence?" help assess the robustness of the inference against mere .

Strategies for Avoidance

To prevent questionable cause fallacies, empirical approaches emphasize rigorous testing to establish genuine causal relationships rather than relying on mere associations. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) serve as a primary method by randomly assigning participants to intervention and control groups, thereby reducing and factors that could mimic causality. Longitudinal studies complement this by tracking variables over extended periods to observe temporal precedence and rule out reverse causation or coincidental patterns. Statistical tests like further aid in time-series data by assessing whether one variable's past values predict another's future values beyond what could be explained by their own histories, helping to distinguish predictive from spurious links. Critical thinking techniques provide individual tools for everyday reasoning to sidestep these errors. Applying encourages selecting explanations with the fewest assumptions, favoring simpler causal models unless evidence demands complexity, which helps avoid overattributing effects to unnecessary variables. Actively seeking disconfirming evidence, such as testing alternative causes or examining counterexamples, counters and ensures claims withstand scrutiny. These practices, rooted in falsification principles, promote skepticism toward unverified correlations like spurious ones observed in observational data. Educational and communicative strategies foster broader awareness and precise discourse. Incorporating causal diagrams, such as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), into curricula equips learners to visualize potential confounders and pathways, enabling them to map assumptions explicitly before inferring causation. In debates or discussions, demanding mechanistic explanations—detailing how one factor plausibly influences another—shifts focus from to verifiable processes, reducing acceptance of . Institutional safeguards in scientific and professional settings reinforce these efforts at a systemic level. processes evaluate proposed causal claims for methodological soundness, requiring evidence of controls for confounders and replication potential to filter out correlation-based assertions lacking causal support. By involving independent experts, this mechanism upholds standards that prevent flawed inferences from entering the .

Similar Fallacies

The single cause fallacy, also termed or the , arises when a multifaceted event or outcome is erroneously attributed to one isolated factor, ignoring the interplay of multiple influences. This error lies in oversimplifying , presuming a solitary for complexity, whereas questionable cause more narrowly critiques the leap from , sequence, or mere association to causation without robust . For instance, blaming economic downturns solely on a policy change overlooks concurrent variables like global events or domestic trends. The posits that an initial action or decision will trigger an inevitable series of progressively worsening events leading to an extreme and undesirable result, based on unsubstantiated causal linkages between the steps. It differs from questionable cause by emphasizing exaggerated, chain-like projections rather than isolated invalid causal inferences, though post hoc assumptions can underpin the initial steps in such arguments. An example is claiming that legalizing mild recreational drugs will inexorably lead to widespread and without evidence of the intermediate connections. The appeal to fallacy involves claiming that a or intervention is beneficial or causally effective simply because it occurs in or aligns with , conflating natural prevalence with validity or . This often manifests as a variant of cum hoc ergo propter hoc within questionable cause, where natural co-occurrences are misinterpreted as causal relationships, such as asserting that herbal remedies work because they are "" despite lacking empirical support. These fallacies overlap with questionable cause in their reliance on flawed causal attributions driven by evidential gaps, but questionable cause distinctly targets the direct insufficiency of proof for specific cause-effect claims, while single cause stresses reductive explanations, amplifies sequential escalations, and invokes naturalistic assumptions as pseudo-evidence.

Philosophical Context

The concept of questionable cause, encompassing fallacies such as assuming causation from mere temporal or , has roots in , particularly in 's analysis of proper demonstration and sophistical refutations. In his , Aristotle emphasizes that genuine scientific knowledge requires identifying the true causes of phenomena, distinguishing between necessary explanatory factors and superficial associations like , which he critiques as inadequate for establishing causal necessity. He further addresses erroneous causal s in Sophistical Refutations, where he identifies the of non causa pro causa—treating a non-cause as a cause—as a common error in dialectical arguments, often arising from mistaking coincidental succession for genuine causation. These discussions laid the groundwork for recognizing questionable cause as a logical pitfall, influencing subsequent philosophical treatments of and . During the medieval period, philosophers like built upon Aristotelian causation, integrating it into theological and , though explicit classifications remained tied to Aristotle's framework. The Enlightenment brought a sharper critique through , who in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding challenged the assumption of necessary causal connections, arguing that our belief in causation stems from habitual association rather than rational insight, rendering inferences like illusory products of psychological custom rather than objective necessity. Hume's distinction, known as , separates relations of ideas (analytic truths) from matters of fact (synthetic claims reliant on induction), positioning questionable cause as a hazard in the latter domain where constant conjunctions mislead without proving efficacy. In the , the formalization of questionable cause appeared in logic textbooks and models of argumentation. Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic categorizes it among informal fallacies of and presumption, illustrating how unwarranted causal claims undermine argument validity by ignoring alternative explanations or mere coincidence. Stephen Toulmin's model in The Uses of Argument frames such fallacies as failures in the warrant linking to claims, particularly when causal backing is inadequately qualified or rebutted, emphasizing contextual evaluation over rigid syllogisms. Complementing these logical approaches, Albert Michotte's experimental studies in The Perception of Causality demonstrated how humans innately perceive causality in visual sequences, such as the "launching effect," predisposing to post hoc illusions at a perceptual level before higher reasoning intervenes. Contemporary philosophy addresses questionable cause through Bayesian frameworks, which counter fallacious priors by updating causal beliefs probabilistically based on evidence, rather than anchoring on naive sequential or correlational assumptions. In these models, improper causal inferences arise from biased initial probabilities, but rigorous application of mitigates them by incorporating multiple hypotheses and likelihoods, as explored in analyses of informal fallacies. This approach revives Humean in probabilistic terms, highlighting how fallacious causation persists in without proper evidential calibration.

References

  1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339288684_Logical_Fallacies
  2. https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
  3. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
  4. https://yc.yccd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FallaciesTip.pdf
  5. http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~hzhang/c188/notes/ch01b-Fallacy.pdf
  6. https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html
  7. https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/false-cause-fallacy/
  8. https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/questionable-cause.html
  9. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/e-learning/epidemiology/practitioners/causation-epidemiology-association-causation
  10. https://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/fallacies.html
  11. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=844215&p=6035786
  12. https://arefiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/filer_public/2014/06/19/knittelsmith_130510.pdf
  13. https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/1ybwbmlw
  14. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.1.i.html
  15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/
  16. https://becker.wustl.edu/news/humors-and-you/
  17. https://www.facebook.com/cambridgeuniversitylibrary/posts/humours-out-of-balance-you-need-to-consult-your-astrology-chartsin-medieval-time/1095752312586432/
  18. https://theness.com/phrenology-history-of-a-pseudoscience/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7329220/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5342645/
  21. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/witch-hunt
  23. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1725/religion--superstition-in-colonial-america/
  24. https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3136032/
  26. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-dubious-practice-of-detox
  27. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/harvard-health-ad-watch-whats-being-cleansed-in-a-detox-cleanse-2020032519294
  28. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/bitcoin-price-rises-japan-russia-regulation.html
  29. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health/
  30. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Crime_rate_report_web.pdf
  31. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6169
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36871397/
  33. https://thinkingispower.com/logical-fallacies/
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7081045/
  35. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/25152459221140842
  36. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/met0000648
  37. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
  38. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126189/
  39. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-025-00540-4
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4975196/
  41. https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/slippery-slope-fallacy/
  42. https://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html
  43. https://behavioralscientist.org/natural-is-better-how-the-naturalistic-fallacy-derails-public-health/
  44. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-medieval/
  45. https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12434928/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.