## Monday, April 13, 2015

### Logical Fallacy of the Day!

Correlative-based fallacies

Correlation proves causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[27] Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping……There’s much more…..

Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[28]  The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible.[1] This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast[2] and the fallacy of the suppressed relative.[3]…..There’s much more…..

· Formal Fallacies -A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form.[1]All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

· Informal fallacies– arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument's content.[12]

My List