<p>According to a <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=0uxnglHzYaoC&amp;pg=PA844" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dictionary of psychology</a> this is simply called &quot;reverse causality&quot;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In attempting to understand the relationship between cause and effect, a tendency to attribute what is actually the cause to the effect. For example, does the ingestion of lead paint cause a lower intelligence quotient (IQ) or is it that children with lower IQs tend to eat lead paint?</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-18T03:19:39.097Z
2020-12-18T03:19:39.097Z
got trolled too much this week
<p>Given your comment to the first answer...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The logical error I am looking for, is &quot;I am wearing my coat, therefore it is raining&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>...I think you are referring to <strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning" rel="nofollow noreferrer">deductive arguments</a></strong>. A deductive argument (definition taken from <a href="https://www.bellevuecollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2015/01/Critical-Thinking-TEXT.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mark Storey, Bellevue College)</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...claims (explicitly or implicitly) that if the premises all are true, then the
conclusion must be true</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Valid examples are (taken from the linked document from Mark Storey)</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>All bats are cute animals. No cute animals are mean. So, certainly, no bats are mean.</li>
<li>Joan is Lauren’s mother. Therefore, Joan must be older than Lauren.</li>
<li>Nobody knows Ned. Therefore, it must be that Ned does not know himself.</li>
<li>Some cats are pets. Thus, some pets must be cats.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>A familiar invalid example is the following (taken from memory on my own Philosophy class, a long, long time ago):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All cows have 4 legs. It has 4 legs, thus it must be a cow.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Your question proper states that it should be related to cause and effect. In terms of deductive reasoning, however, it is based on <em>premises</em> and <em>conclusions</em>. Quoting Mark Storey again:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[T]he argument may fail in its aim; what makes the argument deductive is that it
is the kind of argument that—if it were successful—would have the premises absolutely
guarantee the conclusion to be true.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think what you are after are examples where the <em>premises</em> do not guarantee the <em>conclusion</em> to be true. This is different from causes and effects, though.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-17T08:53:42.433Z
2020-12-17T08:53:42.433Z
AliceD
<p>Would the concept of contraposition from the world of mathematical logic work for you?</p>
<p>From the Wikipedia explanation of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition" rel="nofollow noreferrer">contraposition</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The contrapositive of a statement has its antecedent and consequent inverted and flipped. For instance, the contrapositive of the conditional statement &quot;If it is raining, then I wear my coat&quot; is the statement &quot;If I don't wear my coat, then it isn't raining.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-15T17:21:36.680Z
The logical error I am looking for, is "I am wearing my coat, therefore it is raining" - to use the example.
user1934212
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-15T15:26:34.307Z
2020-12-15T15:26:34.307Z
CuriousLearner
<p>What is the correct scientific term for the - erroneous - inversion of cause and effect?</p>

<cognitive-psychology><perception><terminology><cognition>
What is the scientific term for the erroneous inversion of cause and effect?
user1934212
# What is the scientific term for the erroneous inversion of cause and effect?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-12-15)

What is the correct scientific term for the - erroneous - inversion of cause and effect?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, perception, terminology, cognition


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-12-18. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

According to a [dictionary of psychology](https://books.google.com/books?id=0uxnglHzYaoC&pg=PA844) this is simply called "reverse causality"

> In attempting to understand the relationship between cause and effect, a tendency to attribute what is actually the cause to the effect. For example, does the ingestion of lead paint cause a lower intelligence quotient (IQ) or is it that children with lower IQs tend to eat lead paint?


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-12-17. Score: 0

Given your comment to the first answer...

> The logical error I am looking for, is "I am wearing my coat, therefore it is raining"

...I think you are referring to **[deductive arguments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning)**. A deductive argument (definition taken from [Mark Storey, Bellevue College)](https://www.bellevuecollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2015/01/Critical-Thinking-TEXT.pdf):

> ...claims (explicitly or implicitly) that if the premises all are true, then the
> conclusion must be true

Valid examples are (taken from the linked document from Mark Storey)

> * All bats are cute animals. No cute animals are mean. So, certainly, no bats are mean.
> * Joan is Lauren’s mother. Therefore, Joan must be older than Lauren.
> * Nobody knows Ned. Therefore, it must be that Ned does not know himself.
> * Some cats are pets. Thus, some pets must be cats.

A familiar invalid example is the following (taken from memory on my own Philosophy class, a long, long time ago):

> All cows have 4 legs. It has 4 legs, thus it must be a cow.

Your question proper states that it should be related to cause and effect. In terms of deductive reasoning, however, it is based on *premises* and *conclusions*. Quoting Mark Storey again:

> [T]he argument may fail in its aim; what makes the argument deductive is that it
> is the kind of argument that—if it were successful—would have the premises absolutely
> guarantee the conclusion to be true.

I think what you are after are examples where the *premises* do not guarantee the *conclusion* to be true. This is different from causes and effects, though.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-12-15. Score: 0

Would the concept of contraposition from the world of mathematical logic work for you?

From the Wikipedia explanation of [contraposition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition):

> The contrapositive of a statement has its antecedent and consequent inverted and flipped. For instance, the contrapositive of the conditional statement "If it is raining, then I wear my coat" is the statement "If I don't wear my coat, then it isn't raining."

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: The logical error I am looking for, is "I am wearing my coat, therefore it is raining" - to use the example.  

---

