Think About It. Man Eats Candy. That probably doesn’t come as a shock. You may have done it yourself. It’s what comes next that is the problem. Have you ever noticed the news of the latest fad illness that first came about after eating, breathing or drinking something? Or maybe someone gets well after taking a new medicine, a perfectly logical result of something that often occurs after you’re sick. The truth is that the illness, cure or apparent result simply came after, not necessarily as a result.
Often the information media quotes medical sources with the news that there are now more cases of (fill in the blank) than ever before, obviously resulting from (fill in the blank). Nobody mentions that professionals are more alert to the illness and reports are being documented better, leaving the possibility that there may be even fewer cases now because of improved environmental and medical conditions.
Early Romans as usual had the words for it, post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy meaning ‘After this therefore this.’ I don’t know which of our early logicians came up with it, but if interested, you might want to take a look at the witty and enlightening book ‘Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar’, where philosophy is illustrated by jokes. For example: Every morning she steps out onto her front stoop and exclaims, “Let this house be safe from tigers!” Then she goes back inside. Finally we said to her, “What’s that all about? There isn’t a tiger within a thousand miles of here.” And she said, “See? It works!”
Perhaps you remember the episode of The West Wing where the President, played by Martin Sheen, threw in the Latin phrase just to confound, causing no end of confusion among the staff.
Oh, yes. I almost forgot the candy. Stephanie Slifer writes on crime and justice for CBSNews.com. “Authorities say a Denver man accused of killing his wife while she was on the phone with 911 bought marijuana-infused candy….before he allegedly shot and killed her.”
After an appropriately lengthy exposition of the call and the ensuing investigation, the in-depth report ended with, “It is unclear whether police believe the marijuana directly influenced his behavior.” Unclear? Typical post hoc as hip attorneys are fond of saying. It’s interesting that the initial CBS story two days earlier and not written by Slifer, made only passing reference to “drug” use.
Watch out for the dreaded post hoc ergo proctor hoc, and don’t be overly concerned when you hear someone in your block say that a neighbor Man Eats Candy. Think About It.
Warrant: Denver man ate pot candy before killing wife West Wing Episode