Which fallacy confuses correlation and causation

Consider two events A and B. Event B closely follows Event A in time. Does this mean that Event A caused Event B? Possibly, but not necessarily. Both events could have been cause by a third event C, or more likely, the close timing of Events A and B is a coincidence.

So not only is causation not the only explanation, it is not even the best explanation. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. But the reverse connection is not necessarily true — temporal correlation does not imply causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

This conclusion is false, not just we happen to know that it is factually incorrect, but because the argument is fallacious.

When B is undesirable, this fallacy is often committed in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B. This is the basis of many superstitious beliefs, such as bad luck associated with Friday the 13 th or walking under ladders.

An example of the cum hoc fallacy is as follows. A more plausible explanation is that both are caused by a third factor C , in this case going to bed drunk, which thereby gives rise to a correlation between A and B.

So the conclusion is false. Another example, is that ice-cream sales are correlated with the level of house burglaries during warmer weather when more people are on holidays vacation. If you find the information on this blog useful, you might like to consider supporting us. Filed under Logical fallacies. Tagged as causation , correlation , Fallacy , False cause , logical fallacies , superstition.

Like Like. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. Key properties of R-squared Finally, a value of 0. An R-squared of approximately 0. Correlation coefficients are used to measure the strength of the relationship between two variables. This measures the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables. Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.

Press ESC to cancel. Skip to content Home Social studies Why is it a fallacy to confuse causation and correlation? Social studies. Ben Davis April 24, On the way from England to France, the ferry was extremely crowded, and the crossing took about 75 minutes. On the way back from France to England, there was hardly anyone on the ferry, and the captain announced that the crossing would take 95 minutes.

My 5-year old, wondering why the crossing was going to take longer on the way back, came up with this hypothesis:. My 5-year-old had fallen prey to a classic statistical fallacy: correlation is not causation. Therefore the trip took longer because fewer people got on the ferry. Therefore getting in the bath will lead to the phone ringing. Already a subscriber? Sign in.