A false cause occurs when someone wrongly assumes that there is a causal relationship between two things or events. It's about a conclusion inappropriate, either because such a relationship does not exist or because the supporting evidence is insufficient. The fallacy of false cause, also known as doubtful cause or non causa pro causa (Latin for "non-cause for cause"), occurs when someone wrongly concludes that a thing is the cause of a other.
Cause
Causal fallacies are informal fallacies because the error lies in the content of the argument rather than its logical structure. Identifying faulty reasoning requires examining both the content and context of the argument. In the case of the false cause fallacy, the problem lies in inappropriate reasoning about cause and effect relationships.
This can be due to a number of reasons, such as confusing correlation or co-occurrence with causation, oversimplifying the actual causes of an event, or reversing the meaning of cause and effect. However, it is important to note that the appearance of a false cause does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, only that adequate evidence has not been provided.
Examples
Since "false cause fallacy" is an umbrella term describing various errors in causal reasoning, there are several different types or variations.
The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (from Latin: "after this, therefore because of that") or post hoc fallacy occurs when we incorrectly conclude that the temporal sequence of two events is evidence that one caused the other (e.g., “if A happened before B, then A must have caused B”).
“Every time I buy a good ticket to a game, my team wins. Every time I buy a cheap seat they lose. I better get a good seat for the next game if I want to see my team win the championship! »
The error cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "with this, therefore because of that") is the assumption that because two things (often) happen simultaneously, one causes the other.
This type of causal error ignores the possibility that two events or variables occurring simultaneously could be a coincidence or that there could be a separate, unidentified cause.
“I noticed that every time I sleep with my shoes on, I wake up with a headache. So I’m convinced that sleeping with your shoes on causes headaches.”
Here, the person who claims that sleeping with your shoes on causes headaches is probably ignoring a third factor that explains both (e.g., going to bed drunk).
The post hoc fallacy and the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy are quite similar, but there is a subtle difference between the two regarding the timing of events:
In the post hoc fallacy, an event is interpreted as the cause of a later event because it occurred earlier.
In this error, two events therefore occur simultaneously.
Non causa pro causa (from the Latin "non-cause for cause") is a catch-all term that describes any type of error in which we mistake the false cause of an event for the real cause. “Non causa pro causa” is the same error as “false cause”. It is used to describe the previous two errors, as well as other less typical variations, such as:
The single cause fallacy is the assumption that an event has a single cause, when in reality it has multiple causes. Here, the causal relationships are oversimplified. For example, when a large company goes bankrupt, people may attribute it to poor financial management. However, major events like this usually occur due to multiple causes (e.g., takeover by another company, fierce competition, increased costs).
The reverse causality fallacy occurs when the direction of cause and effect is reversed. In other words, we assume that A causes B, without realizing that B actually causes A. For example, when the street lights come on (A), the sun begins to set (B). Reverse causality would lead us to assume that street lights (A) cause the sun to set (B), when it is actually the other way around.
“Since I started wearing this crystal necklace, I have been extremely lucky. I even passed all my exams. This necklace is my lucky charm.”
In this example, there is no evidence of a direct causal link between the necklace and the person's luck. Other factors probably influenced the results (e.g. chance).
The false cause fallacy often arises in discussions of cause-and-effect relationships between certain types of music, video games, or movies and behavioral problems.
“According to a recent study, individuals who listen to heavy metal music are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior. This is why heavy metal music causes violence.
Here, the speaker commits a fallacy of false cause by concluding that listening to heavy metal directly leads to violent behavior. This is an oversimplification, as the relationship between behavior and musical preferences is much more nuanced and other factors may be at play (e.g. psychological factors, individual predispositions, environmental factors).
Furthermore, the cited study simply points to a possible correlation between music and behavior, not a definite cause-and-effect relationship.
How to avoid a false cause error?
Avoid conclusions and causalities; if there is a correlation, there is no demonstration of causality. This is much more complex to construct statistically.
EN 
FR