6) Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Don't let the Latin fool you into thinking that this something very technical and formal. It translates to "after this, therefore, because of this" or simply put "correlation =/= causation." In an expression, it would be "A happened, then B occurred. Therefore A caused B." It simply means that because there is a correlation between A and B, does not mean that therefore A caused B. To prove this conclusion there needs to be solid evidence to support the sequence. But too often there is no such evidence present because it often looks like the correlation between two events are synonymous, therefore one HAD to have caused the other- meanwhile disregarding other factors that can potentially rule out the connection the two variables possess. An example that I come across way too often that shows the radical nature of this fallacy is as follows:
Many historians and amateurs feel a great sense of frustration when they read something like this. This is because the people that are proclaiming this as clear reasoning, don't ever take into consideration the numerous factors that insinuated the cause of the Dark Ages. For example the Barbarian Invasion of Rome,-Christianity legalized throughout the Roman empire around 313 A.D
-The fall of the Roman empire happened shortly after, thereby commencing the Dark Ages
-Therefore Christianity caused the Dark Ages
