Definition · Plain-language
False cause
The false cause fallacy concludes that one thing causes another simply because they occur in sequence or correlate, without establishing a genuine causal link.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
Post hoc and cum hoc
The post hoc fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) assumes that because B followed A, A caused B — the rooster crows and then the sun rises, so the rooster causes sunrise. The cum hoc fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) assumes that because A and B occur together, one causes the other. Both confuse a necessary clue to causation (sequence or correlation) with proof of it. Establishing genuine causation requires more: a plausible mechanism, ruling out alternatives, and ideally controlled comparison.
Correlation is not causation
The false cause fallacy is the reasoning error behind the maxim "correlation does not imply causation". Two variables can move together for several reasons besides one causing the other: pure coincidence, reverse causation (B actually causes A), or a third confounding variable that drives both. Ice-cream sales and drowning deaths rise together, but neither causes the other — warm weather drives both. Recognising these alternatives is essential before inferring that an observed association reflects a real causal effect.
Establishing real causation
Because false cause is so easy to commit, methodologists insist on stronger evidence before claiming causation. Controlled experiments with random assignment isolate the effect of one variable; observational studies must carefully adjust for confounders; and criteria such as temporal order, consistency, dose–response and a plausible mechanism strengthen a causal case. The fallacy is avoided not by refusing to infer causes, but by demanding evidence that rules out coincidence, reverse causation and confounding before doing so.
Key facts
At a glance
- Definition: inferring causation from mere sequence or correlation
- Latin: non causa pro causa
- Post hoc: "after this, therefore because of this" (sequence)
- Cum hoc: "with this, therefore because of this" (correlation)
- Type: informal fallacy of causal reasoning
- Alternatives to rule out: coincidence, reverse causation, confounding
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: If two things are correlated, one must be causing the other.
Actually: Correlation does not establish causation. Variables can move together through coincidence, reverse causation, or a shared confounding cause. Inferring causation from correlation alone is the cum hoc form of the false cause fallacy.
Often heard: If B reliably happens after A, then A causes B.
Actually: Temporal sequence is necessary for causation but not sufficient. Assuming that because B follows A, A caused B, is the post hoc fallacy. Other explanations and a plausible mechanism must be ruled in before claiming a causal link.
Often heard: The false cause fallacy means we can never claim one thing causes another.
Actually: Causation can be established — through controlled experiments, ruling out confounders, and converging evidence. The fallacy is inferring causation from sequence or correlation alone, not the very idea of identifying causes.
Going deeper
