Difference between revisions of "Cherry picking"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→External links: Spelling/Grammar Check & Cleanup) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→Notable Examples: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Notable Examples== | ==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> |
Even science journals have been fooled: | 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.<ref> [http://fumento.com/media/medjournals.html Michael Fumento: Science Journals Delivering "Political Science"]</ref> | + | * 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.<ref>[http://fumento.com/media/medjournals.html Michael Fumento: Science Journals Delivering "Political Science"]</ref> |
[[File:Hurricane.png|thumb|right|Hurricanes are becoming less frequent]]Here is statement widely used to promote the idea that [[global warming]] makes strong hurricanes more frequent: | [[File:Hurricane.png|thumb|right|Hurricanes are becoming less frequent]]Here is statement widely used to promote the idea that [[global warming]] makes strong hurricanes more frequent: | ||
Revision as of 06:01, July 13, 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]
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
- Cafeteria Christianity for cherry picking in a religious context
- Confirmation bias
- Damning the Alternatives
- Fraud
- Half-truth
- Nutpicking
- Wishful thinking
Notes
External links
- "Cherry Picking in Science" - at Wikipedia