The False Cause Fallacy and the False Attribution Fallacy are two related but distinct logical fallacies. Both are types of informal fallacy, as opposed to formal fallacies in which the logical structure of an argument is flawed.
False Cause occurs when a cause-and-effect relationship is assumed to exist when none exists, or when the relationship is exaggerated or distorted. It is a broad category that encompasses several subtypes, including post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that because one event follows another, the first event caused the second) and cum hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that because two things correlate, one must cause the other). For example, if a person is late for work and their boss assumes it was because they were out partying the night before, the boss has committed a false cause fallacy — they have assumed a causal connection without sufficient evidence, when there may have been many other reasons for the person being late.
False Attribution occurs when someone supports an argument by appealing to a source that is irrelevant, unqualified, fabricated, or cannot be verified. This might involve citing a vague or untraceable source, misrepresenting what a source actually said, or appealing to a source that lacks credibility on the topic at hand. For example, someone might claim that a book they read contained scientific proof of an extraordinary claim, but be unable to produce or identify the book — making the attribution unverifiable and therefore fallacious.
Both fallacies can be used deliberately to deceive or mislead, or they can occur inadvertently. It is important to be aware of these fallacies and to avoid making assumptions about causes and effects without sufficient evidence, or accepting claims based on unverifiable or unqualified sources. Otherwise, we risk making decisions based on faulty logic and incorrect information.
