The West Wing to Real Life
Understanding Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
This post is the final piece in a three-part series where I have been unpacking how science gets misunderstood in public conversations, especially when figures like RFK Jr. speak with authority. In Part 1, I wrote about our craving for soundbites. In Part 2, I examined the Dunning–Kruger effect and why confidence can be mistaken for expertise. And now, in Part 3, we delve into the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc and its impact on how we explain the world.
Your team finally wins after you wear a certain hat, so obviously, the hat is magic. You trip once while wearing new shoes, so the shoes must be cursed. Our brains love to do this — stitch together cause-and-effect stories where none actually exist. There is even a fancy Latin name for it: post hoc ergo propter hoc, which means “after this, therefore because of this.”
I did not learn that phrase in a classroom, though. I learned it from “The West Wing”. It is the title of the second episode of Season 1, in which President Bartlet educates his staff on the fallacy. (Yes, I was that nerd watching Sorkin dialogue on repeat. Yes, I’ve watched the entire series more times than I can count. Yes, it’s one of the best shows ever. Yes, you should watch it, and yes, I will absolutely link the clip below.)
Our Brain Loves This Shortcut
It is such a human reflex. Something happens → something else follows → our brain stitches them together into a cause-and-effect story.
You get a headache after eating chocolate, so you swear off chocolate. Your kid trips after wearing new shoes, so you blame the shoes. Sometimes we are right. But often, we are just comforting ourselves with a neat little story instead of facing the harder truth: life is messy, and causes are rarely that simple. These examples are low-stakes and have little consequence outside ourselves, but when it comes to large, complex issues, understanding post hoc ergo propter hoc matters.
Science is especially vulnerable to this. Just because Event A lines up with Event B does not mean A caused B. Yet, this fallacy fuels numerous conspiracy theories and oversimplified answers. Someone gets sick after a vaccine, so the vaccine is blamed. Two events touch each other in time, and suddenly, we have created a villain.
And the thing is, it makes sense. Our brains are wired to do this. It helps the world feel safer and more predictable. But in reality, correlation does not equal causation. It’s a reminder of how we must always think critically about how we interpret data. We see it in healthcare all the time, especially when it comes to weight and health, but that’s a topic for another post.
Why I Keep Thinking About “The West Wing”
This is where “The West Wing” comes back in for me. Yes, it is fiction, but it modeled something I wish we saw more of in real life: leaders embracing nuance, hashing out debates, and disagreeing with civility. The show did not shy away from the messy complexity of governing.
And the characters were not perfect. Bartlet, CJ, Josh, Toby, all flawed, all wrestling with moral questions, all making mistakes. They were brilliant but human. That was the point. You can pursue truth, try to do good, and still carry your demons.
It serves as a reminder that searching for certainty or flawless heroes is itself a kind of post hoc trap. We want to believe someone has all the answers, but no one does.
How It Fits
In Part 1, we looked at our craving for soundbites: how much easier it is to latch onto a one-liner than sit with the messy truth.
In Part 2, we explored the Dunning–Kruger effect: how confidence can look like expertise, even when it is not.
Now, in Part 3, post hoc ergo propter hoc reveals how our own brains can deceive us, wiring us to perceive patterns that are not actually there.
Together, they form the perfect storm. We want easy explanations. We trust people who sound confident. And we are wired to believe “this caused that” even when it did not.
Closing Thoughts
This is why it is so easy to fall for bad science or bad arguments, not because we are foolish, but because we are human. These shortcuts live in all of us.
But we can resist. We can pause when someone says, “X happened after Y, so Y must have caused X.” We can ask: What else could explain this? What am I not seeing? As President Bartlet would say, “See the whole board.” Or as I would say, “Zoom out.”
Science is not perfect, but it earns our trust because it refuses to settle for the easy story. It wrestles with complexity. Just like those flawed West Wing characters, it embraces the messy work of being human.
And that is where the real truth lives.