Student or Learner
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?
Last edited by buggles; 08-May-2008 at 22:50. Reason: missing "s"
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.
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?
Brutus: Peace! count the clock.since there were no clocks during Roman times, and the striking clock was not invented until 1,400 years after Caesar’s death.
Cassius: The clock has stricken three.
Come to think of it you probably want something like a Hysteron proteron.
Maybe a non sequitur ?
hope this helps.
Last edited by beascarpetta; 08-May-2008 at 19:20.
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?"
Having another think I'd still go for the non causa pro causa.