An excellent quandary! Let me see if I can summarize it briefly. Cherry picking involves selecting specific data or examples that support a particular argument or point of view while ignoring contrary evidence. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, on the other hand, refers to the practice of drawing conclusions from a set of data after the fact, often by highlighting patterns or clusters that weren't specified in advance. Both involve a biased approach to interpreting information, but cherry picking focuses on selective data, while the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy revolves around finding patterns after the fact. Does that clear it up? They are very similar.
@@darkofalltrades Oh, so kinda like cherry picking is more turning a blind eye to info that hurts the claim, while Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is assuming that correlation "is" causation. Is that a correct way to look at it?
@@nicholemoore2448 Yeah, so the cherry-picking version of the sharp-shooter would draw the targets first, then dismiss any missed shots as the fault of the wind. One is dismissing data points that don't fit your argument, the other is retro-actively choosing your argument to fit data points. Pattern-spotting is useful and should be encouraged, but false patterns show up all the time, just because of how much data our brains sift through. This is why pre-registered studies are the gold standard. You have to say beforehand what pattern you are looking for, what methods of analysis you will use, and what result will count as confirmation of the hypothesis. I'm actually keen to do a little maths related to this now, and may post whatever I come up with here, if you're interested.
I have also heard this called the "Jeane Dixon effect," named after the astrologer Jeane Dixon. She tended to promote her prediction hits and ignore the misses. Since a lot of her hits were off of vaguely worded predictions, it may not be so much a "sharpshooter," though.
I think this is a very natural and human outcome from our natural and automatic filtering of constant bombardment of information on our senses. Our brains reject most of the information our senses constantly gather as being unnecessary to our continued survival at this point in time. Of course this doesn't work well in certain situations, which is why when forming a scientific hypothesis, the correct test is trying to break the hypothesis, not looking for data that supports it.
I think this fallacy is a very tempting one to fall into. When making an argument, it is natural to look for evidence to support that argument. But if the evidence that points the other way is ignored, refuting the argument takes that much less work. And beyond outright refuting, if it doesn't take into account opposing positions, it has very little convincing power.
Would the oracle of delphi count as having committed this fallacy when she predicted "a great empire will fall" without specifying WHICH empire? Wherever the bullet might land (whichever empire would fall), you can just draw the red circle afterwards and be correct. Since Lydia lost, you claim "actually the empire I was referring to is Lydia". Conversely, if Persia had lost, you can claim "actually I was referring to Persia" and be correct.
Excellent question! The answer is, "not quite." For it to be the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, there would need to be multiple predictions, some correct and some not, and then they would need to ignore the wrong ones and only count the correct ones when they say she is a good oracle, or something like that. Does that help?
It appears to be common practice to use biblical prophecy to predict biblical outcomes. There is, of course, no independent evidence to support the claims.
Super close! They are nearly the same, but there is a minor difference in method and intention. Cherry picking involves selectively choosing data, while the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy involves selecting specific data after the fact to fit a preconceived conclusion. Both fallacies can lead to misleading conclusions by ignoring important information.
The original biblical passage about divine inspiration was about the usefulness of data mining the Bible for spiritual instruction, not predicting future events or scientific discoveries. If people have been incorrectly using this passage, that does not necessarily invalidate the Bible. If we say “every word in the Bible was channeled by mediums and spiritists who were being spoken to by God,” the meaning of the passage is unchanged, but the justification still exists if and only if one somehow reads into the fate of Israel and Judah the outcome of the presidential election or which crypto to buy. I agree that modern Christians do tend towards somewhat phantastic interpretations of biblical prophecy, such as identifying “the King of the North” as the Soviet Union (when everywhere else in the Bible it means the Assyrians), or that any currently existing power will participate in the Battle of Armageddon (which the Bible clearly places _after_ Christ’s thousand-year reign). Christian eschatological literature sold a fuckton of books in the eighties.
Sounds like cherry picking - but I see that it is a little different... I see even more that apologists will literally paint the target after the shot by literally ignoring actual evidence shown to them (about evolution, cosmology, or archaeology). Their sacred text _cannot_ be wrong, so whatever contradicts it _must_ be wrong...
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't understand how this is different from cherry picking; but I love that you're teaching logical fallacies :)
An excellent quandary! Let me see if I can summarize it briefly.
Cherry picking involves selecting specific data or examples that support a particular argument or point of view while ignoring contrary evidence. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, on the other hand, refers to the practice of drawing conclusions from a set of data after the fact, often by highlighting patterns or clusters that weren't specified in advance. Both involve a biased approach to interpreting information, but cherry picking focuses on selective data, while the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy revolves around finding patterns after the fact.
Does that clear it up? They are very similar.
@@darkofalltrades Oh, so kinda like cherry picking is more turning a blind eye to info that hurts the claim, while Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is assuming that correlation "is" causation.
Is that a correct way to look at it?
You got it exactly right!
@@nicholemoore2448 Yeah, so the cherry-picking version of the sharp-shooter would draw the targets first, then dismiss any missed shots as the fault of the wind. One is dismissing data points that don't fit your argument, the other is retro-actively choosing your argument to fit data points. Pattern-spotting is useful and should be encouraged, but false patterns show up all the time, just because of how much data our brains sift through.
This is why pre-registered studies are the gold standard. You have to say beforehand what pattern you are looking for, what methods of analysis you will use, and what result will count as confirmation of the hypothesis. I'm actually keen to do a little maths related to this now, and may post whatever I come up with here, if you're interested.
@@darkofalltrades Thanks for the clarification, I really appreciate your help :)
I have also heard this called the "Jeane Dixon effect," named after the astrologer Jeane Dixon. She tended to promote her prediction hits and ignore the misses. Since a lot of her hits were off of vaguely worded predictions, it may not be so much a "sharpshooter," though.
I think this is a very natural and human outcome from our natural and automatic filtering of constant bombardment of information on our senses. Our brains reject most of the information our senses constantly gather as being unnecessary to our continued survival at this point in time.
Of course this doesn't work well in certain situations, which is why when forming a scientific hypothesis, the correct test is trying to break the hypothesis, not looking for data that supports it.
I think this fallacy is a very tempting one to fall into.
When making an argument, it is natural to look for evidence to support that argument. But if the evidence that points the other way is ignored, refuting the argument takes that much less work.
And beyond outright refuting, if it doesn't take into account opposing positions, it has very little convincing power.
Great video, thanks!
But as a proud native lifelong Texas citizen, where does the Texas part come from?
cheers
Would the oracle of delphi count as having committed this fallacy when she predicted "a great empire will fall" without specifying WHICH empire?
Wherever the bullet might land (whichever empire would fall), you can just draw the red circle afterwards and be correct. Since Lydia lost, you claim "actually the empire I was referring to is Lydia". Conversely, if Persia had lost, you can claim "actually I was referring to Persia" and be correct.
Excellent question!
The answer is, "not quite."
For it to be the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, there would need to be multiple predictions, some correct and some not, and then they would need to ignore the wrong ones and only count the correct ones when they say she is a good oracle, or something like that.
Does that help?
This video hit the bullseye
It appears to be common practice to use biblical prophecy to predict biblical outcomes. There is, of course, no independent evidence to support the claims.
Thanks dark
So it is more or less the same as cherry picking?
Super close!
They are nearly the same, but there is a minor difference in method and intention.
Cherry picking involves selectively choosing data, while the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy involves selecting specific data after the fact to fit a preconceived conclusion. Both fallacies can lead to misleading conclusions by ignoring important information.
@@darkofalltrades Got it.
The original biblical passage about divine inspiration was about the usefulness of data mining the Bible for spiritual instruction, not predicting future events or scientific discoveries. If people have been incorrectly using this passage, that does not necessarily invalidate the Bible. If we say “every word in the Bible was channeled by mediums and spiritists who were being spoken to by God,” the meaning of the passage is unchanged, but the justification still exists if and only if one somehow reads into the fate of Israel and Judah the outcome of the presidential election or which crypto to buy.
I agree that modern Christians do tend towards somewhat phantastic interpretations of biblical prophecy, such as identifying “the King of the North” as the Soviet Union (when everywhere else in the Bible it means the Assyrians), or that any currently existing power will participate in the Battle of Armageddon (which the Bible clearly places _after_ Christ’s thousand-year reign). Christian eschatological literature sold a fuckton of books in the eighties.
So a combination of cherry picking and circular reasoning?
Sounds like cherry picking - but I see that it is a little different...
I see even more that apologists will literally paint the target after the shot by literally ignoring actual evidence shown to them (about evolution, cosmology, or archaeology). Their sacred text _cannot_ be wrong, so whatever contradicts it _must_ be wrong...
Promo*SM