Saying “It is a mistake to assume that a given event was necessarily caused by a preceding event.” also does not have the gravitas of the Latin version and its designation as a common mistake.
I recall a social psychology professor (back in the mid 1970’s) making this “fallacy” point in regards to common claims, at the time, that marijuana was a gateway drug for harder drugs. He said that the same logic could lead to the conclusion that mother’s milk leads to the use of hard drugs.
Saying “It is a mistake to assume that a given event was necessarily caused by a preceding event." also does not have the gravitas of the Latin version and its designation as a common mistake. I recall a social psychology professor (back in the mid 1970’s) making this “fallacy" point in regards to common claims, at the time, that marijuana was a gateway drug for harder drugs. He said that the same logic could lead to the conclusion that mother’s milk leads to the use of hard drugs.Yeah, unfortunately it's not just the gravitas but the necessity of interpretation from the time period you're studying. In my field, History for example we were taught several Latin phrases like Anti Bellum status quo, Uti Possiditus, Quid Pro Quo, etc, hey that's Latin too! All this was legal mumbo jumbo used in treaties. It's enough to recognize the meaning but as one of my Lit. Profs. said (back in the early 70's) Latin died a slow death and slang finally killed it. But we can thank the Romans for all of those "Romance" languages anyway. Cap't Jack
“Uti Possidetis”. That sounds naughty.
“Uti Possidetis". That sounds naughty.Yeah, and it could be for the loser! Just ask the French. Ok, don't ask the French, they're sore losers even though they got to keep Martinique. Cap't Jack
Saying "It is a mistake to assume that a given event was necessarily caused by a preceding event." also does not have the gravitas of the Latin version and its designation as a common mistake.I like to call it the correlation=causation fallacy. For instance, just because someone dies immediately after I stab them in the heart does not necessarily suggest that one caused the other. For instance, maybe they died because aliens melted their brain with an invisible laser. Until there has been an autopsy, who's to say? To paraphrase some really smart people I've argued with, "correlation does not equal causation, idiot!"
Saying "It is a mistake to assume that a given event was necessarily caused by a preceding event." also does not have the gravitas of the Latin version and its designation as a common mistake.I like to call it the correlation=causation fallacy... I was thinking that also. But then I thought, the Latin phrase is saying something (albeit only) slightly different, in that correlation does not necessarily require a temporal sequence, while the Latin phrase is talking about when there is a specific temporal sequence of events. In any regards, it would seem that it may be easy to make mistakes when claiming that something specifically caused something else. (Or is that an over-generalization fallacy? :) )
"Uti Possidetis". That sounds naughty.It sounds like a nasty venereal disease. Lois
Saying "It is a mistake to assume that a given event was necessarily caused by a preceding event." also does not have the gravitas of the Latin version and its designation as a common mistake.I like to call it the correlation=causation fallacy... I was thinking that also. But then I thought, the Latin phrase is saying something (albeit only) slightly different, in that correlation does not necessarily require a temporal sequence, while the Latin phrase is talking about when there is a specific temporal sequence of events. In any regards, it would seem that it may be easy to make mistakes when claiming that something specifically caused something else. (Or is that an over-generalization fallacy? :) ) The fallacy is the assumption that what comes first always causes what comes later. Obviously some events do cause what comes later. It's the automatic assumption that's the problem--and the fallacy. Lois
Saying "It is a mistake to assume that a given event was necessarily caused by a preceding event." also does not have the gravitas of the Latin version and its designation as a common mistake.I like to call it the correlation=causation fallacy... I was thinking that also. But then I thought, the Latin phrase is saying something (albeit only) slightly different, in that correlation does not necessarily require a temporal sequence, while the Latin phrase is talking about when there is a specific temporal sequence of events. In any regards, it would seem that it may be easy to make mistakes when claiming that something specifically caused something else. (Or is that an over-generalization fallacy? :) ) The fallacy is the assumption that what comes first always causes what comes later. Obviously some events do cause what comes later. It's the automatic assumption that's the problem--and the fallacy. Lois Hence one of the rational thinker's 10 Commandments should be "Though shalt not assume (or over-generalize)."
I think, that being objectively fair, one should also consider the possibility that developmental experiences with older brothers, could have some impact.Yea, older bothers can be a bitch. I used to think I had some shit stories - until I got to listening to what some others I know have gone through with older brothers.