Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc/ False CauseRed HerringStrawman Fallacies

Let’s get started on our three new fallacies. Our first fallacy’s name comes from fox hunting. First, you send your dogs out to chase down the fox. You hop on your horse and chase down the fox hoping to get there before the other players.

If you get ahead of the other players, and are hot on the trail of the fox, you grab a fish out of your saddlebag and rub it on the scent trail. You make a new scent trail with your fish (a red herring) and make the trail go off a different direction. When they other team’s dogs get to the red herring trail, they are diverted. They go in the wrong direction.

And so it is with a red herring fallacy. The speaker distracts from the main point by giving irrelevant information.

The speaker diverts the attention from the issue at hand by talking about unrelated or unimportant information.

LET’S LOOK AT AN EXAMPLE FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.

The moderator asks the question to both candidates: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?

Obama answers first: …….Well, look, I understand your frustration and your cynicism, because while you've been carrying out your responsibilities -- most of the people here, you've got a family budget. If less money is coming in, you end up making cuts. Maybe you don't go out to dinner as much. Maybe you put off buying a new car…..

.

Now look closely—the question is ‘how can American’s trust you’ and he answers ‘people in America have family budgets and are cutting back spending’

He didn’t answer the question at all! He distracted us with unrelated ideas.

Here the quote is again for you to scrutinize: The moderator asks the question to both candidates: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?

Obama answers first: …….Well, look, I understand your frustration and your cynicism, because while you've been carrying out your responsibilities -- most of the people here, you've got a family budget. If less money is coming in, you end up making cuts. Maybe you don't go out to dinner as much. Maybe you put off buying a new car…..

.

Next up, Mcain. He is supposed to answer the question which is as follows: “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?”

He answers with a red herring as well

“He (Obama) voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?”

Are you asking yourself, “Hey, did you guys even hear the question? The moderator asked “how we can trust you” and Obama says Americans have budgets and McCain says that Obama bought a three million dollar overhead projector.

Neither one answered the question. They just diverted the audience. It is likely they already had scripted answers that they would give no matter what the question was.

Both candidates answered with a red herring.

"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous.“

Do you see the red herring here? Look closely.

The issue is whether we should vote for the bond issue. We should be discussing if it is a good or bad issue. Instead, the speaker diverts our attention by making us think about the fact that there are too many things to vote for.

Sneaky, and a red herring.

“I can’t believe that cop gave me a speeding ticket.  He should be focused on catching real criminals like rapists and murderers.” 

Maybe, you have heard this one. Or maybe you have said this one. The point of the argument should stay on whether or not you were speeding or maybe whether or not he speed limit was clearly marked. Throwing rapists and murderers into the discussion clearly is just a distraction.

Yet another red herring

MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT FALLACY

I like to call this one the “I washed my car fallacy.” I know that it will rain today because I washed my car.

You and I both know that me washing my car did not cause the rain, right.

I am blaming a false cause for the rain.

This fallacy is called the False Cause Fallacy or most often by it’s formal namePost Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc which is translated “After this therefore because of this”

Just because something follows after something doesn’t mean that it caused it.

For example,

The razorbacks lost the game because I forgot to wear my lucky hat.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Just because something follows after something doesn’t mean that it caused it.

Photo from etsy.com

For example,

I rubbed spit and ashes on my wart and 4 days later it started to shrink. The spit trick really works!

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Just because something follows after something doesn’t mean that it caused it.

Travie released the song, I wanna be a billionaire. The very next day the stock market took a dive. It is clear that bad rap music is harmful to the economy.

Ok, maybe that one is a little funny but what about these: 1. Playing video games causes the school shootings because shooters

played video games the week before the killings.

2. Immunizations cause autism because many kids who get shots get autism.

For those statistic folks, you know that correlation does not mean causation. But I’ll leave that discussion for your research classes.

POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC

LET’S LOOK AT MORE EXAMPLES

More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education.

UP NEXT, THE STRAWMAN FALLACY

Sometimes a speaker just can’t beat the other person’s argument. One way they try to over come this is by making a fake argument that is easy to beat.

Instead of beating the person and their real argument

They try to make a strawman (stuffed doll) of the argument that can be beaten.

A STRAWMAN FALLACY IS — BELITTLING ARGUMENTS TO REFUTE THEM EASILY

Consider Obama’s Second Inaugural Address, He says, “For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.”

Would anyone really try to say that that America should act alone? Of course not. No one really said that. He made up a fake argument that was easy to belittle.

Consider this statement:

 “PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) advocates that pets have legal rights.   Did you ever see a dog sue its owner for divorce?  These guys are lunatics!” 

We could have an intelligent discussion about whether or not pet’s should have legal rights but that is not what this speaker wants us to think about. This speaker talks about a dog suing it’s owner for divorce. No one really said that, he made it up because it’s an easy argument to make fun of.

I know what your thinking, can’t this be more than one?

Let’s look at it again:

 “PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) advocates that pets have legal rights.   Did you ever see a dog sue its owner for divorce?  These guys are lunatics!” 

The speaker said, “these guys are lunatics” making it an ad hominem abusive and the speaker really tried to get us off topic making it a red herring.

If you caught either one of these, you should pat yourself on the back.

Here’s another example of a strawman. This fallacy comes from Michelle Obama:

"I get confused when people say there are a lot of choices in this race," she said. "There are so many more experienced candidates. My response is, no, that’s not true. You’ve got two choices in this race.

"You’ve got the same old thing over and over again that hasn’t worked for regular folks in my lifetime. And then we have Barack Obama.“ – Michelle Obama

• Notice she doesn’t say what the other person believes she simply make a strawman out of it and says, “the same old thing over and over.” That’s a much easier argument to knock down.

So there we have it.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, the fallacy of false cause saying that just because something follows something doesn’t mean it was caused by it.

Strawman fallacy is the belittling of an argument so it can be refuted easily.

And red herring fallacy where the speaker distracts from the point with sensational or irrelevant material.