trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy confuses temporal sequence with causal connection.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
12 sources for · 0 against

Multiple philosophical and logical references confirm that the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy incorrectly assumes a causal connection based solely on a temporal sequence.

Evidence for · 12
Wikipedia: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
cited by 0
Reference article covering this claim directly
See more details
How claims like this are judged

Judged against reference works: claims of this kind are settled by reference works, not journal abstracts.

More for · 11
Wikipedia: Glossary of logic
cited by 0
Reference article covering this claim directly
McGraw-Hill Ryerson: Argument, the logic of the fallacies
1982 · cited by 0
Identifies post hoc as a causal fallacy involving sequence.
Cambridge University Press: The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy
cited by 0
Defines it as the fallacy of false cause.
Cambridge University Press: The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy
1995 · cited by 0
Identifies it as the false cause fallacy.
Cambridge University Press: The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy
2015 · cited by 0
Defines the phrase as meaning after this, therefore because of this.
Alfred A. Knopf: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry
1968 · cited by 0
Contrasts propter hoc with post hoc temporal sequence.
Alfred A. Knopf: An Introduction To Philosophical Inquiry
1968 · cited by 0
Contrasts causal connection with mere temporal sequence.
New York, Knopf: An introduction to philosophical inquiry; contemporary and classical sources
cited by 0
Differentiates causal connection from mere temporal sequence.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Fundamentals Of Philosophy
1930 · cited by 0
Explicitly notes it confuses temporal sequence with causal sequence.
OpenAIRE: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
2016 · cited by 0
States that following an event does not mean the first caused the second.
OpenAIRE: Knowing Things Backwards
1958 · cited by 0
Explains the fallacy of linking 'after' and 'because'.
Everything we examined (17) — 10 independent sources
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Wikipedia: Post hoc ergo propter hocreferencesame source L1supports
  2. Wikipedia: Glossary of logicreferencesame source L1supports
  3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Temporal Partsreferencesame source L2no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  4. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Temporal Consciousnessreferencesame source L2no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Causal Modelsreferencesame source L2no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  6. McGraw-Hill Ryerson: Argument, the logic of the fallaciesreferencesupports
  7. Cambridge University Press: The Cambridge dictionary of philosophyreferencesame source L4supports
  8. Cambridge University Press: The Cambridge dictionary of philosophyreferencesame source L4supports
  9. Cambridge University Press: The Cambridge dictionary of philosophyreferencesame source L4supports
  10. Alfred A. Knopf: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiryreferencesame source L5supports
  11. Alfred A. Knopf: An Introduction To Philosophical Inquiryreferencesame source L5supports
  12. New York, Knopf: An introduction to philosophical inquiry; contemporary and classical sourcesreferencesame source L5supports
  13. Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Fundamentals Of Philosophyreferencesupports
  14. Psych: Falsification of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire: No Evidence of Systemic Sexual Harassment in Academic STEMpeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  15. Acta Orthopaedica: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: did it ever work?peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  16. OpenAIRE: Post hoc ergo propter hocpeer-reviewedsupports
  17. OpenAIRE: Knowing Things Backwardspeer-reviewedsupports
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked05 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 7505 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt