search

Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)

Historian’s Fallacy

(also known as: retrospective determinism, hindsight)

Description: Judging a person's decision in the light of new information not available at the time.

Logical Form:

Claim X was made in the past.

Those who made the claim did not take into consideration Y, which was not available to them at the time.

Therefore, this was a foolish claim.

Example #1:

You should have never taken the back roads to the concert.  If you had taken the main roads, you would not have been stuck in all that traffic due to the accident.

Explanation: “Thanks for that!” is the usual sarcastic response to this fallacy.  Of course, had we known about the accident, the main road would have been the better choice—but nobody could have reasonably predicted that accident.  It is fallacious, and somewhat pointless, to suggest that we “should have” taken the other way.

Example #2:

Judas was an idiot to turn Jesus over to the authorities.  After all, he ended up committing suicide out of guilt.

Explanation: It is easy for us to blame Judas as people who know the whole story and how it played out.  We have information Judas did not have at the time.  Besides, if Judas never turned in Jesus, and Jesus was never killed, but died while walking on water as an old man after tripping over a wave, would Christianity exist?

Exception: Sometimes, it’s funny to commit this fallacy on purpose at the expense of your friends’ dignity.

Hey, nice going on that decision to buy stock in the company that was shut down a week later by the FBI for the prostitution ring.  Do you have any stock tips for me?

Tip: Practice forgiveness. We all make mistakes, and most of us learn from our mistakes and become better people. Don’t be so quick to crucify someone for something they did in the past, especially if you are doing so to virtue signal.

References:

Arp, R. (2013). 1001 Ideas That Changed the Way We Think. Simon and Schuster.

Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book