Re: [TMZ/CNN ] New child molestation claim by Wade Robson/ Estate Pg16 -#230 /Wades Atty Pg 28 -#40
Lol, isn't that type of issue the subject of a lawsuit going on in la at the moment. Robson's last known job is for working with aeg live, the defendants in a multibillion lawsuit started by the family of the guy he's accusing. You might not see it as a connection worth mentioning, but others wd disagree. There is a massive question mark as to why robson has suddenly changed his previous 20 yr staunch defence of mj into an attack on him by claiming 7 yrs of sex abuse - just at the time of a huge lawsuit involving mj's reputation. Of course there are going to be connections made.
Making the connection without evidence is a well-known logical fallacy. It has a Latin name [Post Hoc] but in English it is "After this, therefore because of this." You have 2 events and one happened before the other. Therefore you conclude b/c one thing happened before the other it is the cause of the other, but actually there is no causal connection other than time.
His last known job is working for AEG Live. He has now made allegations against MJ. Therefore, his allegations are because he worked for AEG. NO. not logical.
signed, Mr. Spock
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown, also referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.
The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:
A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.
[edit]Examples
From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer:[1]
"I can't help but think that you are the cause of this problem; we never had any problem with the furnace until you moved into the apartment." The manager of the apartment house, on no stated grounds other than the temporal priority of the new tenant's occupancy, has that the tenant's presence has some causal relationship to the furnace's becoming faulty.
From With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel:[2]
More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education.
