Logical  Fallacy: a error in reasoning
  (adj)     (noun)

List Of Fallacies
Play More

About This Game

Feedback Here
Or On Facebook

Statement #118 Discussion

All Discussions

Below is the statement as it appears with the fallacy marked as correct. You can see the totals of most frequent responses to this statement. And after reading the any discussion going on below, you can select your choice(s) for the correct answer. For now, whoever posts each statement can update corrections.
Point to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world.
Confusing Cause and Effect
AKA Questionable Cause, Reversing Causation

Category: Fallacies of Presumption → Casual Fallacies

Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:

  1. A and B regularly occur together.
  2. Therefore A is the cause of B. This fallacy requires that there not be, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.
This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.

In some cases it will be evident that the fallacy is being committed. For example, a person might claim that an illness was caused by a person getting a fever. In this case, it would be quite clear that the fever was caused by illness and not the other way around. In other cases, the fallacy is not always evident. One factor that makes causal reasoning quite difficult is that it is not always evident what is the cause and what is the effect. For example, a problem child might be the cause of the parents being short tempered or the short temper of the parents might be the cause of the child being problematic. The difficulty is increased by the fact that some situations might involve feedback. For example, the parents' temper might cause the child to become problematic and the child's behavior could worsen the parents' temper. In such cases it could be rather difficult to sort out what caused what in the first place.

In order to determine that the fallacy has been committed, it must be shown that the causal conclusion has not been adequately supported and that the person committing the fallacy has confused the actual cause with the effect. Showing that the fallacy has been committed will typically involve determining the actual cause and the actual effect. In some cases, as noted above, this can be quite easy. In other cases it will be difficult. In some cases, it might be almost impossible. Another thing that makes causal reasoning difficult is that people often have very different conceptions of cause and, in some cases, the issues are clouded by emotions and ideologies. For example, people often claim violence on TV and in movies must be censored because it causes people to like violence. Other people claim that there is violence on TV and in movies because people like violence. In this case, it is not obvious what the cause really is and the issue is clouded by the fact that emotions often run high on this issue.

While causal reasoning can be difficult, many errors can be avoided with due care and careful testing procedures. This is due to the fact that the fallacy arises because the conclusion is drawn without due care. One way to avoid the fallacy is to pay careful attention to the temporal sequence of events. Since (outside of Star Trek), effects do not generally precede their causes, if A occurs after B, then A cannot be the cause of B. However, these methods go beyond the scope of this program.

All causal fallacies involve an error in causal reasoning. However, this fallacy differs from the other causal fallacies in terms of the error in reasoning being made. In the case of a Post Hoc fallacy, the error is that a person is accepting that A is the cause of B simply because A occurs before B. In the case of the Fallacy of Ignoring a Common Cause A is taken to be the cause of B when there is, in fact, a third factor that is the cause of both A and B. For more information, see the relevant entries in this program.

Click For Fallacy Description

 689 Total Answer Attempts   78%
 534 Correctly Popped Fallacies
 155 Incorrectly Un/Popped
posted by wikiworldorder     
( Random Image )

Most Common Responses

534 - Confusing Cause and Effect
18 - Post Hoc
15 - Ignoring a Common Cause
11 - Red Herring
11 - False Dilemma
9 - Hasty Generalization
9 - Fallacy of Division
7 - Burden of Proof
6 - Biased Generalization
6 - Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
6 - Appeal to Tradition
5 - Genetic Fallacy
5 - Misleading Vividness
4 - Relativist Fallacy
4 - Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief
4 - Fallacy of Composition
4 - Appeal to Ridicule
4 - Begging the Question
3 - Appeal to Authority
3 - Appeal to Belief
2 - Gambler's Fallacy
2 - Circumstantial Ad Hominem
2 - Guilt by Association
2 - Ad Hominem
2 - Appeal to Common Practice
2 - Slippery Slope
2 - Special Pleading
2 - Peer Pressure
1 - Appeal to Flattery
1 - Personal Attack
1 - Appeal to Fear
1 - Appeal to Emotion
1 - Poisoning the Well

Likes for Correct Answers

Show all on page ↑


Play Game - Fallacy List - Add Statements - Player Collections - Discussions

Login - High Scores - About - Trivium - Links - Contact

Donate To DontFallacy.Me - Support Dr. Labossiere

Creative Commons, 2014, Wiki World Order (Morgan Lesko)

* Fallacious statements are usually paired with a random image of a person who never spoke those words.
This free site is for educational purposes, studying intellectual dishonesty. The images are being used under fair use. Sunflower by robstephaustrali.