It happened after. That is the entire case for why it happened because.
Also known as Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Short for post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this, therefore because of this: the assumption that because one event followed another, the first caused the second. The sequence is often real. The causation is asserted, not demonstrated. Anything that happens to precede a good or bad outcome becomes available to take credit or blame for it, whether or not any mechanism connects the two.
Truth-adjacency
Truth-adjacent: the pattern's significance depends on whether the claim is true
Where it shows up
Public discourse
How it works
The phrases and tells that mark this pattern in the wild:
right after we started, this happenedsince implementing this, we've seencorrelation presented with the causal words already attachedno ruled-out alternative explanationsthe timeline offered as the whole argumentLook for what’s missing rather than what’s present. A real causal claim usually comes with a mechanism, a comparison group, or a ruled-out alternative. A post hoc claim comes with a timeline and stops there, letting the sequence imply the causation it never actually establishes.
Sequence alone never disqualifies a causal claim. Real causal arguments are built on sequence too. What’s missing is the tell: no mechanism named, no alternative ruled out, nothing beyond the fact that one thing came first.
One of these two real scenarios is Post hoc. The other is a different pattern entirely. Which one is which?
The tell
A causal claim isn't automatically this fallacy just because it involves timing. Sequence is genuine evidence when paired with a plausible mechanism and a comparison that rules out other explanations. The pattern is specifically when sequence is the entire argument, when nothing beyond it happened after is offered to support the causal claim.
An outcome arrives and needs an explanation. Something preceded it, the timing is real, and nobody has to look further to have an answer that fits.
Because sequence is how people learn almost everything, and the instinct is usually right at close range. Refusing it in one case means explaining why this timing is different from all the timing you do trust.
The thing that got credit was the thing that happened to be nearby, and the trend it was credited for was already underway in places where nothing had been done.
How this pattern gets misused
Someone dismisses any claim of causation as post hoc simply because it involves a sequence of events, even when the claim is backed by a mechanism, a controlled comparison, or ruled-out alternatives.
What it looks like when you're wrong about it
A causal claim isn't automatically this fallacy just because it involves timing. Sequence is genuine evidence when paired with a plausible mechanism and a comparison that rules out other explanations. The pattern is specifically when sequence is the entire argument, when nothing beyond it happened after is offered to support the causal claim.
Not sure? Describe the situation to someone outside it. If they do not see the pattern, pause before you name it.
Misjudgments compound rather than act alone. This pattern is often deployed alongside:
The name is designed to spread. The hook is designed to stick. If you recognized something, share the name.
Seen a real example of post hoc? Suggest it for the Register →