|
|
Non Causa Pro Causa |
| Description: | ||
| The argument offers an explanation that confuses correlation with causality. One event is cited as the cause of another, but, while there may actually be a connection between the two events, the hypothesis mis-locates it, either making the effect into the cause, or treating as cause and effect two events that are independent results of a common cause. | ||
|
|
||
| Comments: | ||
|
||
| The phrase "non causa pro causa" is a Latin phrase that means "not the cause for the cause," i.e. that one has confused something that is not the cause (of something) for something else that is the cause (of that something). | ||
|
|
||
| Examples: | ||
| "Putting more police on the streets actually causes crime to increase! When we increased the number of cops on the beat, the number of crimes witnessed by police actually went up." | ||
| "I failed the logic test today, since I wasn't wearing my lucky bracelet. Next time I'll remember to wear it." | ||
|
|
||
| Discussion: | ||
| Aristotle thought of cause and effect as simultaneous: a
cart moves at the same time that the horse pulls it. The very moment that
the horse stops moving, the cart stops moving. Since (according to
Aristotle) cause and effect occur simultaneously, when we observe two events
occurring together, it is reasonable to suppose that there is some causal
relation between them. Retroductive reasoning can be based on concomitances
other than temporal simultaneity. Cause and effect must also be of about the
same "size." The horse and the cart are roughly equivalent in size, weight,
etc. It would be peculiar to see a cart drawn by a flea, or, for that
matter, by a jumbo jet.
The fallacy of Non Causa generally begins with the observation that two events appear to be related by some concomitance or other. As such it appears to be a good piece of retroductive reasoning, since this is how any piece of retroductive reasoning must begin. Unfortunately concomitance is a symmetrical relation. If A is like B, then B is also like A. Hence, even if there is a causal relation between things, it is often hard to tell which is cause and which is effect. For example, we know that the horse moves the cart and that the cart does not move the horse, but since the two events occur simultaneously we must base our judgment that the horse is the cause on something other than mere simultaneity. The fallacy of Non Causa errs in overlooking obviously relevant considerations and leaping to a claim of causal connection based on one concomitance alone. |
||
|
|
||
| Classification: A False Cause Fallacy (a retroductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss). | ||
|
||
| Source: Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations 5 (167b: 20 - 35). | ||
|
||
Go to: WELCOME EXPLANATION of PRINCIPLES TABLE of FALLACIES EXERCISES INDEX