The world consists of many dots that when connected can reveal meaningful patterns based in reality. There are also many times when people connect the dots in ways that seem meaningful but are actually fictions. Similar to finding patterns in clouds we place order and meaning onto things that are unconnected, truly amorphous, or random. In such instances we are connecting, or in other words correlating, things that are not connected in any way other than within our own minds. From this arises the saying, "correlation does not imply causation."
For instance we pray and what we pray for comes true. Because these two events happen in close proximity in time one may conclude that the prayer caused the desired event. However, there are many other explanations for why the desired event may have happened. If there is no connection and a person determines incorrectly that there is they are exhibiting an example of superstitious learning. He or she has falsely concluded that some action taken caused something that was really just a coincidence.
In other instances things may meaningfully happen together but we make an incorrect assumption about the causal relationship. A for instance could be the tides and the location of the moon. Someone could come to the faulty conclusion that the more subdued light from the moon causes the tides rather than the moon's gravity which we cannot detect.
This would all seem to be very obvious to those schooled in logic, statistical analysis, and the experimental method. However, it is very common to encounter arguments that commit the fallacy of “cum/post hoc ergo propter hoc” or roughly translated “with/after this therefore because of this.” For instance, I recently encountered an argument that vaccines do indeed cause autism. The rationale given was the fact that this parent’s child had been diagnosed with autism shortly after receiving a vaccine. There is a possibility that vaccines are in some way causative to certain cases of autism. However, the argument provided does not support that assertion. Just because the two events were in close proximity does not support the claim. There is also the problem that it is basically a “study” with only one participant specifically that one child.
There are often very good arguments for many opposing positions. Arguments are often based on constructed based on the unknowns and unknowables. It is also common for those in the debate to overlook the solid arguments and grasp the fallacious defenses that actually weaken the position.
