"Post hoc ergo propter hoc."
Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." This familiar logical fallacy states, "Event XYZ followed event ABC, therefore, event ABC caused event XYZ."
Just because an event is followed by another event, that does not mean the second event was caused by the first. Is it possible the first event did, in fact, cause the second? Yes, it is possible. By the causality is not determined by sheer precedence, nor is effect determined by coming after the first.
Similar to the fallacy of association or correlation. The mere association of two events (key word "mere") reveals no causal relationship. Though a causal relationship may in fact exist in the association/correlation. Or in the first example, the preceding event may actually be the cause of the succeeding event.
In the two cases, eating egg yolks and eating rice cereal simply preceded "turns out fine."
I had salmon for lunch yesterday. Things turned out OK today.
Phew. Close call. I think I'll live dangerously. Tomorrow, tuna.
