Post hoc ergo propter hoc concludes that A caused B only because A happened before B. Temporal sequence alone does not prove causality.
Example
“I wore this amulet and then I won. The amulet made me win.”
(Temporal coincidence is not a cause.)
Applied example (political)
“Since the minister took office, inflation went down. The minister caused it.”
(Prior trends and other factors are ignored.)
Applied example (mystical)
“I did an energy cleansing and the next day I got a job call. The cleansing caused it.”
(No causal mechanism is shown.)
Why it is fallacious
- It confuses precedence with causation.
- There may be hidden or reverse causes.
- It ignores controls and mechanisms.
How to spot it
- “After A, B happened, therefore A caused B.”.
- No causal mechanism is shown.
- Alternative explanations are ignored.
How to respond
- Ask for independent causal evidence.
- Consider external variables.
- Require comparisons or controls.