 anachronistic fallacy
Does the above term make sense? I'm wanting to use in in the context of saying that it would be wrong to suggest something was happening for a reason, because that reason only occured after the event happened.
If that's a bad explanation, basically I want to say that control of food aid was not a causal factor in the Sudanese civil war because food aid only began arriving after the war started.
So basically... If that's incorrect or doesnt make sense ( I cant help but feel Ive made it up...) could someone correct me or suggest an alternative?
Many thanks,
D. |