It would seem to be a kind of variant on the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy — if one thing follows another the second must have been caused by the first.
Only in this case you are looking at denials where “propter hoc” actually holds — the second thing really was caused by the first.
There really should be a catchy name for this, since it permeates a lot of political reasoning on topics such as remediation for ozone hole depletion, FDC regulations, environmental regulations, etc. People see that timely action averted a problem, but somehow take that as evidence that there wasn’t a problem in the first place.
>People see that timely action averted a problem, but somehow take that as evidence that there wasn’t a problem in the first place.
Depending on the situation, 2 cases are possible (and have happened):
(a) A thing was indeed about to become a grave problem and timely action prevented it.
(b) A thing was never to become a big issue, and all the action spent preventing it didn't have any significance.
In both cases the outcome is "thing didn't become a big problem".
But in (a) action is what helped with this, and in (b) action was irrelevant and wasted.
Now some people see the outcome (no issue) and think that action was wasted. That's accurate in (a) and wrong in (b).
My point is that whether "timely action averted a problem" or "the problem was oversold to begin with" is something to be argued and proved, not taken for granted.
We know it could have been a big problem by the small things that got omitted and became problems.
You can argue that we didn’t need to pump hundreds of millions into it; but it is a fact that there would have been a crisis had it not been actively averted.
The same issue exists now with 2048 and we’re already seeing problems (on things that date far into the future) and we will likely need to expend effort and energy in avoiding this issue: especially on embedded devices.
If you’re denying that there would have been a problem then I’m afraid you’re simply mistaken.
I could give you many citations if I wasn’t on my phone. There was even a documentary about it.
Only in this case you are looking at denials where “propter hoc” actually holds — the second thing really was caused by the first.
There really should be a catchy name for this, since it permeates a lot of political reasoning on topics such as remediation for ozone hole depletion, FDC regulations, environmental regulations, etc. People see that timely action averted a problem, but somehow take that as evidence that there wasn’t a problem in the first place.