So many people have a hard time making sense of post hoc reasoning. I think it’s because we’ve been programmed by the media, school and society to think that we’re all rational creatures, who can reason about the world, and when we aren’t, we’re just a bunch of irrational jerks who can’t be reasoned with.
The problem is that post hoc reasoning is mostly a way of justifying bad behavior and getting out of trouble. A lot of people find post hoc reasoning to be so convincing that they make things like killing a police officer or breaking into a bank seem rational. When you actually look at the evidence and do the math, you find that we have a lot more in common with an angry monkey than a rational human being.
It is the nature of humanity to be more of a pack of angry monkeys than rational human beings. And it should be noted that post hoc reasoning is also a way of justifying bad behavior and getting out of trouble. A lot of people find post hoc reasoning to be so convincing that they make things like breaking into a bank seem rational. When you actually look at the evidence and do the math, you find that we have a lot more in common with an angry monkey than a rational human being.
One reason that we get so easily convinced by post hoc reasoning is that it’s simple and straight forward. In fact, it’s the very same reason that we think the sky is blue and the moon is a crescent. We just have to look at the evidence and decide for ourselves what it means.
Post hoc reasoning does a ton of things, but the main thing it does is convince us that something is true. It tells us that, for example, a bank robber might break into the bank and steal money while the police are out looking for him. Post hoc reasoning can be used to explain many things, such as the fact that the first sentence of the Bible is true, or the fact that the moon is bigger than the sun. But that is not quite as convincing as it looks.
Post hoc reasoning is when you reason something out and then see that it’s not true. This is a tactic that scientists use when they want to explain a phenomenon, but they’re using it incorrectly.
You can do this with logic too. We can prove something true by finding a logical alternative that doesn’t work. There are many examples of this in sci-fi, and its something that makes people excited to read about them. In fact, we have just finished watching an excellent episode of _Lost_ where the entire episode was built on post hoc reasoning. The theory was that the Dharma Bums were trying to break into the island.
The series _Lost_ uses post hoc reasoning to explain the events that occur for the characters, as well as all the crazy stuff that happens in the show. Basically, they have a theory in mind, but it’s usually not correct or complete, and then they come up with a reason why they believe it’s the right one.
Post hoc reasoning is basically a way for the series creators to explain everything that happens within the show. If you have more than one theory, they usually refer to one as the main theory and explain everything that happens within that theory. Sometimes, though, the show tries to throw out a new theory that happens to fit the existing one. This is especially true in the case of the Dharma Bums.
The Dharma Bums are the show’s main characters who are based on the concept that people can change the way they think, and that some people are more prone to being wrong than others. This idea was most recently brought up in episode 3 of the first season. The main theory is that the Dharma Bums are the first humans who took LSD, and that this caused them to go back in time and kill all of humanity.
