### The Logic Forum Discussion Area

Logic
Author
Comment

I'm a bit perplexed; I've read examples about the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy such as when a person sneezes and then an earthquake happens. However, I'm confused as to why more mundane examples haven't been showcased, such a when someone drops something and it breaks.

P1. I dropped Object A.
P2. Object A broke after I dropped it.
C. Therefore Object A broke because I dropped it.

How is this not a "post hoc" fallacy? How do I know that some other force didn't cause the object to break after I dropped it? i.e., where do you draw the line here? Thanks for answering.

Re: Question about "post hoc" fallacy

Hi name1.
This question is answered studying the logic of causation.
If one thing (B) follows another (A), A may or may not be a cause or the cause of B.
In the most obvious case (complete necessary causation), if the presence of A is invariably followed by the presence of B, and the absence of A is invariably followed by the absence of B, you can say for sure that A caused B (for sure, so long as the generalizations implied by the modality "invariably" are found to hold).
In lesser cases (partial-necessary, complete-contingent, partial-contingent), the conditions for this inference become more complicated, but are still formally expressible.