All this fallacy mongering sometimes gets quite old and pedantic--one can identify the problem with an argument without having to classify the error in Latin. Indeed, continually citing the particular fallacy often obscures the issue of whether the argument actually succumbs to the fallacy in question. The fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, of course, does not occur whenever someone argues that a prior A causes a later B--every cause must, indeed, precede its effect. The problem comes when the person giving the argument refuses or neglects to give any reason for causation besides sequence. However, sometimes you have a premise that is implied; it may be unnecessary to state this premise, but then again the hidden premise could be some vague idea that isn't quite on the suface of the argument yet, and hence a result of sloppy thinking. In this example, there are people who have indeed advanced reasons why W. and the market tumble are more than mere coincidence. E.g.: Bush seems like he doesn't know what he is doing. This appearance creates an air of uncertainty regarding economic policy. The market hates uncertainty about policy directions. Therefore Bush=Dow 8,000. (This may be compelling to some.)

It is so difficult to nail down the causal links in public policy outputs that sometimes partisan hacks get it right as often as real political scientists and economists. For this reason, I might agree that the hacks you speak of appear to have little evidence of causal links; I only point out that the links in question are hard to nail down.

In addition, causation itself isn't without problems either in philosophy. As Hume argued (centuries after al-Ghazali did in the Islamic world), the best evidence we can come up with for causation is of the circumstantial sort--you can't 'see' causation. Hence, perhaps every argument is tainted by something like post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For these reasons, I like to use fallacies as 'mistakes to watch for' rather than 'absolute rules fallen out of heaven.'

Nice posts lately. Until later. :)

I can't see anything in your analysis that I disagree with. Indeed Dubya's pronouncements may have some effect on the economy although I think it difficult to believe the effect large. The point I was trying to make was that the hacks, as you call them, state it as obvious with no analysis, seemingly unaware that they may be considerably off base. In general I agree with you it is better to simply state the reason an argument is good or bad in simple language. In this case I thought the links to good examples useful in clarifying some of the terms and what they mean. You obviously have access to the Internet, but you leave no e-mail address or website of your own. Would you like to share the reason?

I am careful about my email by paranoid habit I guess--I get email advertisements for some things that are quite repulsive to me, and yet I can't stop them. After reading a few of your posts it seems that you are careful with personal information, but I it's hard to yank myself out of my anonymity. I hope that being quite nameless doesn't make me anymore disagreeable than I would be otherwise. I didn't mean to sound polemical, your basic point is well-taken.

I have no problem with your anonymity. Thoughtful comments are always welcome. It's heartening to see that you find something of interest here. I was just curious as to your reasons. I'm surprised that you haven't posted a comment on this post.

I hadn't seen that post. Now I have a comment on it.

Norm,

Three cheers for this post, simply because it demonstrates commendable objectivity.

I could go on and on about the reasons for the poor stock market, and perhaps Bush is included among them -- but he is not necessary and far from sufficient when it comes to causing our current economic woes.

It's heartening to see someone like you (who disagrees with Bush on a great deal) refuse to stoop to blaming him for everything wrong with the world.

Anonymous, I recognize a Peruvian graduate when I read one.

Got me--nice blog, and thanks for the opportunity to discuss.