A single observed sequence may be arbitrary coincidence
Evidence
[N]or is it reasonable to conclude, merely because one event, in one instance, precedes another, that therefore the one is the cause, the other the effect. Their conjunction may be arbitrary and casual. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1129
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to general reasoning standards across the book (induction, empirical evidence) and to the scientific requirement of repeated observation. — connects to: Inferring causation merely from temporal sequence is the post hoc fallacy. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1131; Chronological sequence alone never proves causation — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1130; Sequence alone never establishes causation as a matter of law — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1134 (+4 more)
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1129
Library Connections
- Convergent correlational evidence should justify action absent perfect scientific certainty
#complicates(0.60) — Harriet A. Washington, A Terrible Thing to Waste, 50
Broader Connections
- Chronological sequence alone never proves causation
#corroborates(0.90) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1130 - Inferring causation merely from temporal sequence is the post hoc fallacy.
#corroborates(0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1131 - Sequence alone never establishes causation as a matter of law
#corroborates(0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1134