Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The above example commits the correlation-implies-causation fallacy, as it prematurely concludes that sleeping with one's shoes on causes headache. A more plausible explanation is that both are caused by a third factor, in this case going to bed drunk, which thereby gives rise to a correlation. So the conclusion is false. Example 2
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for 'with this, therefore because of this'; correlation implies causation; faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – a faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other. [57]
The observational interpretation fallacy is the cognitive bias where association identified in observational studies are misinterpreted as causal relationships. This misinterpretation often influences clinical guidelines, public health policies, and medical practices, sometimes to the detriment of patient safety and resource allocation.
A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical fallacy in which one event seems to be the cause of a later ...
Fallacies based on correlatives include: [1] False dilemma or false correlative. Here something which is not a correlative is treated as a correlative, excluding some other possibility. Denying the correlative where an attempt is made to introduce another option into a true correlative. Suppressed correlative
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, [1] causal reductionism, root cause fallacy, and reduction fallacy, [2] is an informal fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. [1] This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast [2] and the fallacy of the suppressed relative. [3]
When a correlation and a causation correlate it is as much a coincidence as any correlation is to any causative effect. It cannot be reworded to the satisfaction of all without someone inventing a new term to encompass the point, probably sticking something in front of imply in such a way as to make it not emulate standard conversation.