Cherry picking

Cherry picking

It is a logical fallacy and it happens when we choose and focus only on evidence that supports our views and arguments while ignoring anything that may contradict us.

@jam_iee52

🧐

Problem Solving

MORE IDEAS FROM THE ARTICLE

  • It fails to take into consideration all the available information
  • It presents information in a misleading way.
  • It might lead to improper analysis and might cause someone to paint a misleading picture of a certain outcome.

Also referred to as Bernoulli’s maxim, it states that, when assessing the probability that a certain hypothesis is true, we must take into account all the available information.

  • Intentional: people that use intentionally cherry picking in their arguments because doing so makes their arguments more persuasive.
  • Unintentional: driven by the flawed manner in which humans process information and make decisions.

  • Expose the fallacious reasoning: point out the fact that your opponent is ignoring crucial information which should be taken into account, and explain why this is a problem.
  • Bring omitted information into consideration: discuss the information which was omitted, and show how taking it into account changes the situation at hand.

  • Ask yourself: “Is there any additional evidence or possible interpretations of existing evidence that I should be considering?
  • Avoid forming a hypothesis too early on, before you’ve had a chance to look at all the available information.

Deepstash helps you become inspired, wiser and productive, through bite-sized ideas from the best articles, books and videos out there.

GET THE APP:

RELATED IDEAS

How to Avoid Jumping to Conclusions
  • Question the validity of the information.
  • Collect maximum information before reaching any hypothesis.
  • Come up with multiple hypotheses.
  • Don't favor a certain outcome.
  • Find potential flaws in your own reasoning and question your facts.
  • Recheck the premise and the first principles.
  • Use a debiasing technique, visualizing the situation from other people's perspectives.

8

IDEAS

  1. Explain why this sort of reasoning is fallacious: namely the fact that your opponent’s inability to explain a certain phenomenon or to understand a certain theory, does not invalidate current explanations for it.
  2. Shift the burden of proof back to your opponent: ask them to support their initial assertion, and explain why they are incredulous, and why they think that this validates their position.
  3. If possible, you should show that there is scientific evidence that can be used in order to explain the phenomenon that’s being discussed. 

It happens when there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, and you assume that the truth must rest somewhere in the middle. False balance can be a result of a false equivalence when two sides are presented as being equal, and the terms are used interchangeably, even though they are not.

For instance, in a group interview, equal weight is given to the opinions of two opposing interviewees, one of whom is an established expert, and the other a false authority with no valid credentials.

© Brainstash, Inc

AboutCuratorsJobsPress KitTerms of ServicePrivacy PolicySitemap