Cherry picking fallacy
Updated for an article on academia.edu: February 26, 2023
One time a kind younger man in Crumpsall walked by me on the street and stated (paraphrased): 'Watch your back here, this is like the Bronx!' Interestingly, I visited the Bronx three years later.
My Facebook reply
Thursday, June 29, 2017
A one-sided argument
THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Preface
While living in Manchester, I did visit the Cathedral which was architecturally fairly interesting. I was not as impressed by the very liberal theology pamphlets that were on offer.
The first place I lived in within Greater Manchester, was Crumpsall, and I used to do a very interesting walk from Crumpsall to well past this Cathedral in central Manchester.
One time a kind younger man in Crumpsall walked by me on the street and stated (paraphrased): 'Watch your back here, this is like the Bronx!' Interestingly, I visited the Bronx three years later.
Crumpsall seemed to be a more dangerous place than the Bronx, in my humble opinion, but I was (am) no expert.
Cherry picking fallacy (informal fallacy)
Informal fallacies were reviewed in the Pirie text. This opposed to formal fallacies that are formal logic errors, that have been reviewed in Langer.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
Citing Dean Hintz
I do find it somewhat puzzling that so many people who used to follow the advice of authoritative agencies such as these now are inclined to dismiss them out of hand simply based on popular social media feeds.
Cherry picking, may be taking place in some cases.
Cited
Cherry Picking
(also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)
Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.
One-sided argument
I have reviewed a one-sided argument, previously, edited.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Many decisions persons may weigh in have advantages and disadvantages. The fallacy of one-sided assessment is fallen into when only one side of a case is taken into consideration. (158).
Pros and cons should be evaluated in order to make judgements based on the balance. (158-159). This fallacy can err on only counting the advantages or disadvantages in regard to an issue. Relevant material is omitted from arguments in order to achieve a one-sided argument. (159).
Providing two or more sides on an argument and supporting theology and philosophy with methodology was very much emphasized to me within my British academic studies at the University of Wales.
Besides this approach providing more potential objectivity, at least, in the evaluation if arguments; it also disciplines the academic mind to reasonably consider alternative views. This is an approach which in theory should make an academic less biased and partisan.
Omitting the benefit
A one-sided argument is quite similar to omitting the benefit in the Pirie text.
Cited
When evaluating the benefits of an activity, both the good and bad consequence, should be considered. (157).
If each may exist.
A surprisingly (157) common fallacy consists of omitting the benefits produced by an activity or proposal and counting only the adverse consequences. (157).
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
