World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

Article Id: WHEBN0000476197
Reproduction Date:

Title: Texas sharpshooter fallacy  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Questionable cause, Availability heuristic, Bible code, Mierscheid law, Clustering illusion
Collection: Causal Fallacies, Metaphors Referring to War and Violence
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning a false conclusion is inferred.[1] This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.

The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some gunshots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.[2][3]

Contents

  • Structure 1
  • Examples 2
  • See also 3
    • Related fallacies 3.1
  • References 4
  • External links 5

Structure

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy often arises when a person has a large amount of data at their disposal, but only focuses on a small subset of that data. Some factor other than the one attributed may give all the elements in that subset some kind of common property (or pair of common properties, when arguing for correlation). If the person attempts to account for the likelihood of finding some subset in the large data with some common property by a factor other than its actual cause, then that person is likely committing a Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

The fallacy is characterized by a lack of a specific hypothesis prior to the gathering of data, or the formulation of a hypothesis only after data have already been gathered and examined.[4] Thus, it typically does not apply if one had an ex ante, or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data. For example one might, prior to examining the information, have in mind a specific physical mechanism implying the particular relationship. One could then use the information to give support or cast doubt on the presence of that mechanism. Alternatively, if additional information can be generated using the same process as the original information, one can use the original information to construct a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis on the new data. (See hypothesis testing.) What one cannot do is use the same information to construct and test the same hypothesis (see hypotheses suggested by the data) — to do so would be to commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Examples

  • A Swedish study in 1992 tried to determine whether or not power lines caused some kind of poor health effects. The researchers surveyed everyone living within 300 meters of high-voltage power lines over a 25-year period and looked for statistically significant increases in rates of over 800 ailments. The study found that the incidence of childhood leukemia was four times higher among those that lived closest to the power lines, and it spurred calls to action by the Swedish government. The problem with the conclusion, however, was that the number of potential ailments, i.e. over 800, was so large that it created a high probability that at least one ailment would exhibit the appearance of a statistically significant difference by chance alone. Subsequent studies failed to show any links between power lines and childhood leukemia, neither in causation nor even in correlation.[5]
  • This fallacy is often found in modern-day interpretations of the quatrains of Nostradamus. Nostradamus' quatrains are often liberally translated from the original (archaic) French, stripped of their historical context, and then applied to support the conclusion that Nostradamus predicted a given modern-day event, after the event actually occurred.[6]

See also

Related fallacies

References

  1. ^ Bennett, Bo, "Texas sharpshooter fallacy", Logically Fallacious, retrieved October 2014, description: ignoring the difference while focusing on the similarities, thus coming to an inaccurate conclusion 
  2. ^ Atul Gawande (1999-08-02). "The cancer-cluster myth" (PDF). The New Yorker. Retrieved 2009-10-10. 
  3. ^  
  4. ^ Thompson, William C. (July 18, 2009). "Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation" (PDF). Law, Probability, & Risk 8 (3): 257–258.  
  5. ^ "FRONTLINE: previous reports: transcripts: currents of fear". PBS. 1995-06-13. Retrieved 2012-07-03. 
  6. ^ "Nostradamus Predicted 9/11?". snopes.com. Retrieved 2012-07-03. 

External links

  • Fallacy files entry
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.