Bronze-level articleCherry picking

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on

Logic and rhetoric

Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic

Cherry picking, when used figuratively, refers to selective extraction of points in an argument in order to refute or affirm them while ignoring others which will not support the point(s) being made. It derives from the obvious reluctance to harvest unripe, or overripe, fruit and to select only those which will make profit (or pie).

Often, cherry-picked factoids or references will be over-extrapolated and oversold to give the impression that they are representative, when they are not.

Much of cherry picking is anecdotal evidence, because it only uses one or two examples to make a point; statistical cherry-picking essentially uses larger-scale anecdotes, by ignoring the broader evidence on an issue.


[edit] Alternate names

  • suppressed evidence
  • fallacy of incomplete evidence
  • argument by selective observation
  • argument by half-truth
  • card stacking
  • fallacy of exclusion
  • ignoring counterevidence
  • one-sided argument
  • fallacy of slanting
  • cover-up
  • incomplete/concealed evidence
  • observational selection
  • Occam's broom

[edit] Explanation

When presenting a case, omitting important evidence that would hurt one's own case.

In the case of debating Creationism vs. Evolution. A common suppressed evidence argument would be "Evolution is racist". This is obviously ignoring the evidence that many (in fact most) racist groups who exist in America in the past and today are everything but evolutionist. Most believe in the Bible as well as creationism. One only needs to look around to see, Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity, are among the most famous who believe in the statement and claim 'God created races separately' which is actually contradictory to Biblical scriptures. With that said, racism is more seen in creation than in evolution, by simply denying people of different skin color have common ancestor, one is likely racist. The claim also ignores the fact that modern biologists argue that, other than skin colour, "race" is not a valid biological concept.

On the other hand, there is the example of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who was staunch believer in evolution (certainly not a "creationist") and a proponent of eugenics (the science of creating and engineering the evolution of man through breeding the strong and desirable and eliminating the misfits and the weak). In relating the strategy to succeed with her "Negro Project", she stated (in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 10, 1939), "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

This is not to say evolution is now perfect because creationism is racist too (Tu quoque). But just to point out the fact evolution is misused by some in racist actions, does not mean it is inherently racist, not to mention refute the theory of evolution.

[edit] Occam's broom

A variant of cherry picking is Occam's broom; which is used to sweep inconvenient facts under the rug. It's subtly different from cherry picking, because it's just one (or a few) facts that are hidden, rather than a select few that are hand-picked from a large set.

The term was coined by biologist Sidney Brenner.[1]

[edit] Examples

[edit] Religion

It often occurs that religious fanatics are not altogether in agreement with the holy books and teachings to which they claim to adhere; thus, they are often found cherry-picking points from these holy books, harping on the ones with which they agree and hand-waving away those with which they disagree. Examples:

  • Creationists comb the Bible for quotes that appear to have anticipated scientific truths, such as Hebrews 1:11 (claimed to anticipate the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and Isaiah 40:22 (claimed to anticipate knowledge of the ellipsoidal shape of the earth and the expanding universe), while ignoring those that blatantly clash with science.
  • Reformed Protestants were essentially the inventors of Biblical literalism; but when it comes to verses such as Luke 22:19-20, they insist upon a symbolic interpretation, denying that the blood and body of Jesus is literally present in the Eucharist.
  • On the other hand, the Catholic Church prefers broad allegorical interpretations of Bible stories, and generally downplays the significance of the Bible so as to assert a role for its own "Magisterium;" but when it comes to the Eucharist, they insist upon the literal interpretation, making cannibals and vampires out of partakers in the sacrament.

[edit] Pseudohistory

Cherry-picking is common among historical revisionists who may try to smear a group they disagree with by finding a couple people on the other side who were "bad" while only presenting a few people on your own side who were "good".

A golden example of this would be pundits among the hard-right who claim that the dixiecrats weren't conservative because they were Democratic, despite all counterevidence.

[edit] Pharmaceutical industry

In the pharmaeutical industry, a "cherry picking protocol" can be part of the drug discovery process. Say you're looking for a drug that'll neutralize Protein XYZ. You take several thousand chemicals whose effects are unknown, and dose a small number of cells in a culture medium with each chemical individually, putting each chemical/cell culture combo in its own separate miniature test tube. You then pass them under a detector that can tell if the cells were affected or not, which records which tubes had a response you're looking for and which didn't. The act of separating out the tubes that had a response, for further testing, is called "hit picking" or "cherry picking."

[edit] Automotive industry

A mechanic who chooses to work on newer units in relatively pristine condition, leaving the more intractable and less convenient jobs for others to swear at, could be said to be cherry picking.

[edit] Demarcation

You do not commit this fallacy if you:

  • omit minor evidence which is irrelevant to your point. To call this "suppressing evidence" would be quibbling.
  • omit "counterevidence" that has already been falsified. To call this "suppressing evidence" would itself suppressing evidence, namely the fact that the counterevidence has already been refuted. Creationists do this a lot.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Personal tools