anachronistic fallacy

[drewdown]

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.

[buggles]

Originally Posted by drewdown

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.

You might well have made it up - and if you have -congratulations.
It makes perfect sense to me and really encapsulates the idea that a misapprehension has come about despite the time making it impossible.

Buggles(not a teacher)

[David L.]

It sounds really good - but unfortunately, not appropriate. In fact, I cannot get my head around an example of what constitutes something that is.
an 'anachronism' is a thing belonging or appropriate to a period in time other than that in which it exists, esp. a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned : "Everything was as it would have appeared in centuries past apart from one anachronism, a bright yellow construction crane."
It's attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong.

...and it's not post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

[drewdown]

Hmm, I'm not really up on my Latin - but is there a phrase which encapsulates the flawed logic I'm describing?

My example isn't really a case of one thing following another and someone wrongly drawing a causal relationship. In that event I suppose I could use "post hoc logical fallacy". Is there an equivalent to this phrase I could employ?

[beascarpetta]

Originally Posted by David L.

It sounds really good - but unfortunately, not appropriate. In fact, I cannot get my head around an example of what constitutes something that is.

an anachronism that comes to mind would be that of Act II, 1, 193 – 194 of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

Brutus: Peace! count the clock.
Cassius: The clock has stricken three.

since there were no clocks during Roman times, and the striking clock was not invented until 1,400 years after Caesar’s death.

Come to think of it you probably want something like a Hysteron proteron.
Maybe a non sequitur ?

hope this helps.

[David L.]

Another really good term bites the dust. It is not flawed logic (that any good philosophy student could see through) that is being referred to.
non sequitur : a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
It's like saying, a la Noel Coward's HAY FEVER "Hang on - that doesn't follow. How can my son be his younger sister's father?"

[beascarpetta]

Having another think I'd still go for the non causa pro causa.