Why did some historians criticize narratives as implying that chronological order proves causation?

Some historians and critics have viewed historical narratives with skepticism because they argue that the structure of a narrative can imply a logical fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore on account of it").1

This criticism suggests that simply arranging events in chronological order can lead to the mistaken assumption that the sequence itself proves a causal relationship between them. Because narratives rely on ordinary language—using connectors like "so," "hence," and "therefore"—they inherently imply causal linkages that may not be empirically justified by the timeline alone.1

During the period when social-scientific approaches to history were ascendant, this perceived reliance on chronological sequence caused narratives to fall out of favor, as they were seen as a potentially defective or unscientific method of explanation. Critics argue that while a narrative may be persuasive or plausible, it does not necessarily provide the logically compelling proof of causation that a rigorous scientific explanation requires.12