Difference between revisions of "Cherry picking"
(replace hurrican trend graph) |
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 8 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 | + | '''"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. |
| + | ==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: | ||
| − | * "... over the past 35 years ... A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." [ | + | * "... over the past 35 years ... A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16166514?dopt=Abstract] |
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." [ | + | * "... 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." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556825] |
| + | ==See also== | ||
| + | *[[Cafeteria Christianity]] for cherry picking in a religious context | ||
| + | *[[Confirmation bias]] | ||
| + | *[[Damning the Alternatives]] | ||
| + | *[[Motivated reasoning]] | ||
| + | *[[Fraud]] | ||
| + | *[[Half-truth]] | ||
| + | *[[Nutpicking]] | ||
| + | *[[Wishful thinking]] | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==External links== | ||
| + | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)#In_science "Cherry Picking in Science"] - at Wikipedia | ||
[[Category:Statistics]] | [[Category:Statistics]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Logical Fallacies]] | ||
Latest revision as of 18:39, January 25, 2026
"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.
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
- Motivated reasoning
- Fraud
- Half-truth
- Nutpicking
- Wishful thinking
Notes
External links
- "Cherry Picking in Science" - at Wikipedia