deepstash
Beta
Cherry Picking: When People Ignore Evidence that They Dislike
The principle of total evidence
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.
200 SAVES
This is a professional note extracted from an online article.
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
Remember anything
IDEA EXTRACTED FROM:
6
Key Ideas
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.
The problem with cherry picking
- 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.
The principle of total evidence
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.
Why we cherry-pick 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.
How to respond to cherry picking
- 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.
How to avoid cherry picking
- 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.
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
8
Key Ideas
Jumping into Conclusions
Jumping into Conclusions: Examples
- Inference-observation confusion: An assumption made that may or may not be correct. Example: Concluding that a guy is rich, based on the car he drives.
- Fortune-Telling: Assumption of knowing exactly what will happen in the future.
- Mind Reading: Assuming based on how to have read someone's mind and concluded something which may not be true.
- Extreme Extrapolation: Finding a minor clue and making something major out of it.
- Overgeneralization: Copy-pasting a piece of knowledge over something that you think is related, but is not.
- Labeling: Stereotyping a set of people based on their likes and dislikes.
Why We Jump to Conclusions
The reason people jump to conclusions is the fact that they find it easy.
Fact-checking and 100 percent accuracy on everything they see or observe consume way too much time for a normal person.
Taking mental shortcuts is the path most people choose to jump to conclusions.
5 more ideas
4
Key Ideas
The argument from incredulity
Is a logical fallacy where someone concludes that since they can’t believe that a certain concept is true, then it must be false and vice versa.
Its 2 basic forms:
“I c...
Basic structure of an argument from incredulity
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.
Premise 2: if a certain proposition is true, then I must be able to explain or imagine how that can be.
Conclusions: proposition X is false.
It’s ok to be incredulous
... and to bring this up as part of an argument. The issue with doing so occurs when this incredulity isn’t justified or supported by concrete information, and when this lack of belief is used in order to assume that a preferred personal explanation must be the right one, despite the lack of proof.
At the same time, it’s also important to remember that it’s possible that the person using the argument from incredulity is right, despite the fact that their reasoning is flawed.
one more idea
The argument from dictionary
The argument from a dictionary is a logical fallacy and happens when someone's argument is based, in a problematic way, on the definition of a particular term as it appears in a diction...
An example of the appeal to definition
"We should ignore the theory of evolution because the dictionary says that a theory is just an opinion that you have about something you can't prove."
The person using this fallacy is basing their statement on a specific definition of the word "theory" while ignoring alternative definitions that will better capture the meaning of the term as it's used in a scientific context.
Appeal to definition: when the process becomes fallacious
Not every use of a definition is necessarily fallacious. If the definition is properly justified and is selected in a properly justified way, it is generally not fallacious. However, it is fallacious when at least one of the following conditions are true:
- There is no valid reason for using the definition.
- The definition was cherry-picked out of a range of possible definitions.
3 more ideas