Difference between revisions of "Cherry picking"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(an apparent effort to make black church torchings appear to be an escalating phenomenon) |
(male-female birth ratios between 1970 and 1990) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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: | ||
| + | * 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> | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
Revision as of 15:35, July 29, 2010
"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).
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]