Logical Fallacy of Correlation Proves Causation / Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc / Coincidental Correlation / Correlation Implies Causation

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The Logical Fallacy of Correlation Proves Causation / Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc / Coincidental Correlation / Correlation Implies Causation occurs when a statistical correlation between two variables is thought to be proof that one causes the other, but there is no proof that one causes the other. This fallacy is often applied very selectively for political reasons. It can sweep away a lot of evidence. Correlation, however, does have some significance. It is just not conclusive.

There is a correlation between government spending and inflation. It could be that government spending causes inflation, or that inflation causes government spending, or that government spending and inflation have a common cause. Causes occur before the effects of the causes. A common cause occurs before the effects of that cause. So, if there is a common cause for overnment spending and inflation, then that cause should happen before the effect of the cause. However, sometimes apparent correlation ceases to exist when more examples are examined, and chance just made it seem as if there was a correlation when none existed in reality.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Correlation Proves Causation / Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc / Coincidental Correlation / Correlation Implies Causation

Coyne: "Yes, the antievolutionism of Americans is a direct result of their high religiosity, but people like Mooney try to ensure that this does not become generally known."

"Antievolutionism" is Coyne's word that means believing what God is saying through His Creation, through Scripture, and through direct communication with the human spirit and soul/mind. So, Coyne is saying that the correlation proves causation. Both the correlation and cause are between high religiosity and rejection of the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story. However, it is not religiosity that is the cause. It is the Voice of God speaking to His people and telling them to reject the lie of the rejection of the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story. God speaks to His people and tells them to come to know Him personally through Jesus Christ. He asks them to listen as He directs them moment by moment. He asks them to stop leaning on their own understanding and to acknowledge Him in all their ways. He assures them that He will then direct their paths.

"within only a few years, the number of whooping cough cases exploded . . . The obvious question — why? — does not have a clear answer . . . the anti-vaccine movement clings to anecdotal evidence and the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation . . ."

If you are going to accuse someone of using the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation, it is important that you hedge the fact that you are implying the same logical fallacy to accuse that someone of causing the number of whooping cough cases to explode. That is why the obvious question — why? — does not have a clear answer. It has a long answer in an article titled: "The Dangerous History of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracies" by Jeffrey Kopman. We will let the sides fight over which of their fallacies is more legitimate.

Fallacy Abuse

Michael M. ". . . the concurrent rise of christianity and science, neither correlation nor coincidence proves causation."

Jonathan Sarfati: "In the first article linked, Why does science work at all? I pointed out: 'Informed historians of science, including non-Christians, have pointed out that modern science first flourished under a Christian worldview while it was stillborn in other cultures such as ancient Greece, China and Arabia.' This article explains more what biblical axioms are required, and how they can't be deduced from evolution."

Michael M. apparently could not understand the article, and so he committed fallacy abuse. Quotes taken from "The Biblical Roots of Modern Science."