Difference between revisions of "Cherry picking"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(See Also: added two)
(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&#146;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&#146;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 Also==
+
==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 />
  
==Links==
+
==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]
Hurricanes are becoming less frequent
Here is statement widely used to promote the idea that global warming makes strong hurricanes more frequent:
  • "... 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

Notes

  1. Bestselling author Michael Fumento reports: "USA Today’s Arson Artistry."
  2. Michael Fumento: Science Journals Delivering "Political Science"

External links