Cherry Picking (Fallacy of the Week)

[D.Dragon]

Roses are red,
Violets won't be included,
But if you thought that meant they
Didn't exist, then you're deluded.

[ifacro]

So, is Winston Wu's book's purpose to enumerate and demonstrate all known argumentative fallacies or is it a real book trying to make 'real' arguments? (serious question). Because if it's the former, it's actually a really good book.

[EdwardHowton]

THIS JUST IN: MARTYMER ENDORSES QUOTE MINING 0:58



(and yes, because this is the internet and people are dumb, the above is a joke ffs)

[horatiotrismegistus]

I only like data that supports my desired conclusion!
Like cherries!

[mamamheus]

Yet another excellent definition of one of the many types of fallacy there are. I knew there were more than a handful but you're getting to the stage where you could write a book on the subject! I'm actually not kidding.

Just going to share this with my scientist daughter in her final undergrad year. She's thinking of joining the debating society (being aware of all of these fallacies will help her undermine her opposition!) and will also need to be aware of the unintentional traps she could find herself in when it comes to choosing the data needed for her dissertation. It's not just the sharks who can end up being caught by one of these fallacies, it can be those with good & honest intentions, too. You set out to prove something, find a positive data set and there you go! Except you didn't carry on looking for further sets which aren't so positive. When under the strain of writing a diss or thesis, it's far too easy a hole to fall into. That's where supervisors should come in, but if yours is busy (or useless; some do exist sadly), it's possible for one of these fallacies to find its way - innocently - into the work, especially if the negative data (or even more positive data taken from a different angle, so to speak) is in an obscure journal, an old one - such things are usually not first choice when it comes to science - and so on.

Thanks again for pursuing this subject. I'm sure you must spend far more time preparing and filming these short, but informative films than we can guess at. There are so many started series in great presenters' channels which appear to peter out after a year or so. Sometimes enthusiasm to tackle something big can blind us to the difficulties ahead; such as reading the whole bible from the perspective of a scientist, or something like that. Most 'whole bible' series end after Genesis or perhaps Exodus.

Just one FYI; unless the person has a peculiar way of pronouncing his name, Ian is (normally!) pronounced as ee-an. Ask a Scot for Iain - I've heard ee-an and ee-eye-n (mostly the former). I believe Ian is a Scottish name so they should know best :-) Sorry for sounding picky (I've just spent the best part of a week proof-reading parts of a biochemistry thesis and I've only just stopped so my mind is still proofing) but if I were in your position, I should like to know. All the best and please carry on if there are more named fallacies to come.

Oh, and please consider publishing this series as part of a book or video on presenting science and even subjects such as religious education! Add a chapter on how to think critically, and it would reach kids who aren't taught that as part of the curriculum, or worse, who go to a school which does not encourage free thought. Your natural teaching ability would make it very readable and probably would become either a 'you should read this' book or might even reach textbook status. I could see one of the big computer company bosses paying you for a copy per child to be given out free of charge to each student at the beginning of high school - it would be away of investing in their own futures as computer science and engineering would benefit from the book as much as any other subject. Just picture it: it would help them understand critical thinking before entering a lab for the first time. And for those who have fundamentalist parents, not mentioning religion within the book but having a header saying that it's about how to win a debate/form a cogent argument, it could slide past the parents while they thought it could help in apologetics, and introduce the child to a better way of thinking. Surely that would be a wonderful gift to humanity?

I am sure that you are incredibly busy - you've said you have a baby, who is probably at least a toddler or even at pre-school by now, and I know what that's like all too well. I'm already at the grandchildren stage! - but you've got the scripts from these videos available to act as good chapter drafts. If you've still got the scripts for past videos, they could also act as draft forms. I'd be willing to act as a proof reader, free of charge, for any English version (and let's be honest, there's at least one mostly English-speaking country which could do with these definitions in every household!) if you required one. I can also watch and write the captions if you want - any video, any time. I'm not professional but I do have two degrees, one a mishmash of many subjects including maths and astrophysics, as well as history and art (look up our Open University!) The other is in English lit and lang. I've also spent over a decade, until a few years ago, proofreading for charities and fiction writers on either side of the pond. I don't use the official squiggles that proofreaders do for publishing houses but comment and use highlighter in Word. Actually, if you want me to assist in any such or similar way, say for captions, reply to this and give me a way to contact you privately.

I really hope you don't mind any of this, but your work inspires me to imagine such a situation, where kids get the information they need without parents hovering over their shoulders. Some will reject it, others may see it as a way to get out of a religion, especially one with cult-like attitudes, by being able to form good arguments about the holy text, whatever religion it is.

[markhackett]

There is another difference between court and science. the court assumes that there is a bias, the judge comes at both parties presuming they are both lying by omission, and the intent is that by adding both sets you get the truth. Meanwhile, even peer review, in science you are assumed to be honest and representing yourself accurately as you can. Peer review is supposed to correct mistakes, not counter lies or fallacies. And, as with the patent laws, the presumption is that after it is accepted and printed, if it is wrong, further work will be produced to show it. As with the patent system, this is vastly more expensive and runs under the presumption that the one doing the work is doing their goddamned job,

And neither the patent office nor many journals (notably the pay to play vanity ones) do so, and the more they don't do their job, the less efficient and vastly more wasteful the process will be.

[cerberaodollam]

Everytowners cherrypick the shit out of statistics and appeal to emotion as well, in order to "prove" having rights is a lethal danger.

[diegoacosta]

What the fuck was that weird hybrid between a duck and a crocodile?

[CapQuacer]

Sorry had to pause it TLD just released a video brb

[feynstein]

I think this is the best example of cherrypicking: 1 million smokers were studied for the possibility of cancer. 999, 999 of them got cancer. 1 of them didn't. Hence smoking doesn't cause cancer.

[chbu]

This video is about cherry picking, that must mean all of Martmer 81's videos are about cherry picking. - Creationist logic.

[Bajabberwabbers]

Although I enjoy the hyperbole, 3:03 The Bible never says that God hats gays, only that having gay sex is wrong (unless I'm forgetting something)

[grejsancoprative]

... Finally. Been waiting for this one.

[DarthAlphaTheGreat]

Hey, leave King Crocduck out of this! :P

[flamingoboot]

do you take request? if so you should do the equivocation fallacy next.. creationist use this quite a lot

[imienazwisko]

Yay! Martymer made a video!

When will you do WDPLASS?

[ActiveAdvocate]

Mmm...cherries...
Haha, hi Mr. Marty! :) Okay, so in my particular brand of Pantheism (I created this brand), I conglomerate all the good stuff about the seven different religions I practice and live by those. I am consciously and INTENTIONALLY cherry-picking. I'm not saying that all seven religions are GOOD, but that many different ASPECTS of those religions are good. Firstly, does that make sense, and secondly, is that intellectually honest on my part?

[FeyScribe]

Martymer will you be covering the moral equivalence fallacy?
I've seen that one a bit lately, and I'm having such a time catching it - it's almost like my brain refuses to understand.

[JackDecker]

Come on Martymer81, be fair. Some man-made global warming alarmists also cherry pick bad weather and point to it being caused by man-made global warming but ignore the overall trend. Recent case in point is Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma. Many alarmists literally said these are examples of man-made global warming but ignore that we have been actually experiencing a lull in hurricanes over the past twelve years.

[rudyardkipling]

LOL perfectly correct until you get to climate change then you use EXACTLY the same tactic - it just shows you are not immune to confirmation bias, no one is, but it's not good when you get tripped up when making a counter point.

I like your videos and agree with 98% of their content, but the climate change issue is so politically loaded you really shouldn't be using it as an example, to imply that the "science is settled" in relation to AGW is disingenuous at best, and when it comes to cherry picking the alarmists are past masters.