Difference between revisions of "Cherry picking"
From Conservapedia
(→See Also: added two) |
DavidB4-bot (Talk | contribs) (→External links: Spelling/Grammar Check & Cleanup) |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | '''"Cherry picking"''' is the practice of collecting data which supports your point while systematically ignoring all contradictory data. This is a blatant violation of the [[scientific method]] and among scientists is generally considered to be unethical (see [[scientific misconduct]] and [[advocacy science]]). | + | '''"Cherry picking"''' is the practice of collecting data which supports your point while systematically ignoring all contradictory data (cf. [[Damning the Alternatives]]). This is a blatant violation of the [[scientific method]] and among scientists is generally considered to be unethical (see [[scientific misconduct]] and [[advocacy science]]). |
+ | ==Notable Examples== | ||
A political example occurred in the 1990s, when the "[[black church burning epidemic]]" captured headlines: | A political example occurred in the 1990s, when the "[[black church burning epidemic]]" captured headlines: | ||
* The CDR had systematically ignored fires set by blacks and those that occurred in the early part of the decade; it had also labeled some fires as arson that clearly were not — all in an apparent effort to make black church torchings appear to be an escalating phenomenon.<ref> [http://fumento.com/arson/cleveland.html Bestselling author Michael Fumento reports: "USA Today’s Arson Artistry."]</ref> | * The CDR had systematically ignored fires set by blacks and those that occurred in the early part of the decade; it had also labeled some fires as arson that clearly were not — all in an apparent effort to make black church torchings appear to be an escalating phenomenon.<ref> [http://fumento.com/arson/cleveland.html Bestselling author Michael Fumento reports: "USA Today’s Arson Artistry."]</ref> | ||
Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
Here is the rebuttal: | Here is the rebuttal: | ||
* "... not a trend. Rather, it is likely a part of the large interdecadal variations in the number of intense typhoons related to similar temporal fluctuations in the atmospheric environment." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556825] | * "... not a trend. Rather, it is likely a part of the large interdecadal variations in the number of intense typhoons related to similar temporal fluctuations in the atmospheric environment." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556825] | ||
− | ==See | + | ==See also== |
*[[Cafeteria Christianity]] for cherry picking in a religious context | *[[Cafeteria Christianity]] for cherry picking in a religious context | ||
*[[Confirmation bias]] | *[[Confirmation bias]] | ||
+ | *[[Damning the Alternatives]] | ||
+ | *[[Fraud]] | ||
+ | *[[Half-truth]] | ||
+ | *[[Nutpicking]] | ||
*[[Wishful thinking]] | *[[Wishful thinking]] | ||
Line 19: | Line 24: | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
− | == | + | ==External links== |
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)#In_science "Cherry Picking in Science"] - at Wikipedia | *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)#In_science "Cherry Picking in Science"] - at Wikipedia | ||
[[Category:Statistics]] | [[Category:Statistics]] | ||
+ | [[Category:Logical Fallacies]] |
Revision as of 12:54, June 28, 2016
"Cherry picking" is the practice of collecting data which supports your point while systematically ignoring all contradictory data (cf. Damning the Alternatives). This is a blatant violation of the scientific method and among scientists is generally considered to be unethical (see scientific misconduct and advocacy science).
Notable Examples
A political example occurred in the 1990s, when the "black church burning epidemic" captured headlines:
- The CDR had systematically ignored fires set by blacks and those that occurred in the early part of the decade; it had also labeled some fires as arson that clearly were not — all in an apparent effort to make black church torchings appear to be an escalating phenomenon.[1]
Even science journals have been fooled:
- Consider a report by three environmentalist authors back in 1998 in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), analyzing male-female birth ratios between 1970 and 1990. The authors found male births declining, and predictably blamed man-made chemicals. Yet public data going back to 1940 showed gender ratios are always changing, for no obvious reason. Years that disproved their thesis were simply sliced out.[2]
- "... over the past 35 years ... A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." [1]
Here is the rebuttal:
- "... not a trend. Rather, it is likely a part of the large interdecadal variations in the number of intense typhoons related to similar temporal fluctuations in the atmospheric environment." [2]
See also
- Cafeteria Christianity for cherry picking in a religious context
- Confirmation bias
- Damning the Alternatives
- Fraud
- Half-truth
- Nutpicking
- Wishful thinking
Notes
- ↑ Bestselling author Michael Fumento reports: "USA Todays Arson Artistry."
- ↑ Michael Fumento: Science Journals Delivering "Political Science"
External links
- "Cherry Picking in Science" - at Wikipedia