This statement is essentially a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. No, it's not. A post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is to assert that X causes Y _solely_ bec

This statement is essentially a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. No, it's not. A post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is to assert that X causes Y _solely_ because X and Y co-occur. Philip asserts that doing the Ph.D. caused him to be wiser, savvier, etc, but he did so on grounds other than just citing their co-occurrence. Much of the rest of the article explained _how_ X caused Y, i.e., how doing the degree resulted in this or that bit of wisdom. On a broader note, it really bogs down a discussion to point out 'logical fallacies' when they aren't there. Ideally, we'd all go out of our way to try to see another person's point, even when it's poorly made, but the antithesis of that is to criticize a point on technical grounds, when those technical grounds aren't even there.