Fallacies False Cause

The obstacle that I propose to add to the course is fallacies of false cause. These are informal fallacies when an argument infers a false causal connection in a set of data. This would include fallacies such as correlation implies causation (cum hoc, ergo propter hoc), post hoc ergo propter hoc, causal reductionism, and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

It is important that the fallacies taught in this course are relevant to the students taking the course. This ensures students are able to relate to the content at hand. The fallacies of false cause fulfill this requirement as these fallacies are something we observe on a daily basis, notably in the media. After learning about common fallacies during the course, students are now able to spot fallacious reasoning in everyday arguments or even political debates. Similarly, by learning fallacies concerning false causes, so too we would spot when the media makes dubious claims or twist scientific papers to fit into their specific narrative. So, with original source material so readily available on the Internet, headlines that use this tactic would be less likely to

For example, in Argument Analysis, we learned about the fallacies of relevance and irrelevant premises. Drawing causal connections are a form of seeking patterns. So the module that the fallacies of false cause should supplement is Investigations, where we touch upon pattern-seeking and solving mysteries. The current module only mentions the Base Rate fallacy, and does not discuss any other fallacies that could accompany it. This makes it one of the least substantial obstacles in the course. Furthermore, false cause is only briefly mentioned at the end of Patterns & Predictions. Adding the fallacies of false cause to this module would therefore greatly expand its fallacy section without becoming too overwhelming, as this would bring it up to the length of the other