The cause and effect website was helpful in understanding the cause and effect argument until it got into detail about reverse causation and post hoc reasoning. For reverse causation, they are arguments that have the effect before the cause. For post hoc reasoning, they are arguments whose only proof of causation is that the effect followed the cause. I had to read it a third time and still I’m not certain if I grasp it completely. What I got was that these two are fallacious arguments? Apart from that little hurdle, the other parts and example were fairly easy to understand. I got the exercises correct and to be honest, I thought I understood cause and effect arguments until reading the website. The website actually made it a bit more confusing than the book. Although the book is longer than the website, the content was fairly easy to understand and the examples in them was fun to read, too.
I agree with you when you say the book explained it more clearly. I feel like the book I had more examples to relate the fallacies to while the website would give us fewer examples. But from what I understand about post hoc reasoning is A happens before B, so A causes B. And reverse causation is when the effect is presented before you know the cause. I feel like even though you said you were unclear you still have a good understanding of the definition. I think most aspects of the website were fairly easy to understand but I do agree they need to work on making the examples more clear.
ReplyDelete