Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,026
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + +
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (view source)
Revision as of 20:58, February 19, 2019
, 20:58, February 19, 2019an inversion of the fallacy
A variation holds that if ''X'' happened and then ''Y'' did not happen, ''X'' must have prevented ''Y.'' Those disputing a causal relationship sometimes refer to ''X'' as an '''anti-tiger rock''', after the joke that a certain rock must have the magical ability to repel tigers because there are no tigers around. Liberals often justify their favored laws on the basis of what bad things have not happened, without presenting evidence or argument that those things would have happened otherwise.
A variation holds that if ''X'' happened and then ''Y'' did not happen, ''X'' must have prevented ''Y.'' Those disputing a causal relationship sometimes refer to ''X'' as an '''anti-tiger rock''', after the joke that a certain rock must have the magical ability to repel tigers because there are no tigers around. Liberals often justify their favored laws on the basis of what bad things have not happened, without presenting evidence or argument that those things would have happened otherwise.
An inversion holds that if ''X'' happened and then ''Y'' did not happen, ''X'' was unnecessary to prevent ''Y'' because ''Y'' would not have happened regardless. Both this inversion and the regular version of the fallacy are fallacious because they ignore the difference between causation and coincidence.
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]