![]() Only someone with a poor understanding of the complexities of DNA and living cells would have included it in the article. The paragraph on "random" evolution is a really, really bad example of the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" and should be removed from the article. Gcolvin ( talk) 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)gcolvin Full disclosure: Bem chaired my thesis committee at Cornell. One ambiguous comment by Bem does not suffice to prove a fallacy: you need to demonstrate the fallacy in the paper itself and/or with a fair survey of the ongoing debate and attempted replications. Rather, it describes Feeling the Future as thoroughly peer-reviewed work by a careful scientist. I won't take out the section just yet, but the referenced article is not an example of the fallacy. BTW, I seriously deny that a great flood has happened ) Senator Harrison ( talk) 02:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, thats what I figured after thinking about it more. ![]() The builders are uplift due to tectonic processes, volcanism, sedimentation and compression, etc. ħuman 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC) By the way, the geological stuff was formed by building and destroying processes, of which glaciers are but one of the destructive ones, unless you count "building" moraines like Cape Cod and Long Island. In this case there is no further experiment - his friends don't say "do that again". Yes, but then the hypo is used to make predictions which are tested by experiment or further observations. Senator Harrison ( talk) 21:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC) ħuman 20:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT) I'm confused by this Īren't most hypothesis's formed like this in the first place? How is saying that the geological formations are formed by glaciers any different? You can't make any inferences until you see said geological formation. I agree that the "example" section is hard to follow. The main point is that the hypothesis is formed after the data is collected. Could somebody maybe edit them to point out the link? Maybe showcase only one of these examples (like the lottery one) and make it clearer who made what hypothesis and used what data? I can sorta-kinda guess what the examples are aiming at, but overall, I'm feeling somewhat unsatisfied. I'm not really sure how the examples demonstrate the fallacy. Do more research.ĭata-based decision making can be a tremendous gift for your business, but only if you let the data tell the story for you, not the other way around. Stay away from averages if you can avoid itĮvaluate the data against your hypothesis and against your anti-hypothesisĪbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It relies on the inputter as well as a set of variables specific to your business.ĭata is a tool. You allow for variances in your data because no data is perfect. You are looking for what statisticians refer to as a 95% confidence level which means that 9.5 times out of ten this result will be the same. ![]() If the answer to both questions above is yes you’ve fallen victim to the sharpshooter fallacy.Ĭonclusions from data should be exact and specific. Next, use the same dataset to verify the opposite of your hunch. Next, compile a sample data set based on your hunch. You know it without the benefit of being able to explain it. The bigger your dataset gets, the harder it is to identify where the simple insights are gathered.ĭrawing conclusions from your data always starts with a hunch. A grandparent holding their infant octuplet grandchildren will have an average age of 18. Place your feet in the desert and your head in the arctic, your mean temperature is 75. The danger comes from three things:ġ) Finding data to fit your pre-conceived conclusions (cherry picking)Ģ) Assuming that because you can’t find it, it doesn’t existģ) Averages or targeting the “mean”. The challenge always comes from the interpretation of the data. It gives a person a clear, objective picture of their reality. It illustrates how people look for similarities, ignoring differences, and do not account for randomness.ĭata is a wonderful thing. The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is a logical fallacy based on the metaphor of a gunman shooting the side of a barn, then drawing targets around the bullet hole clusters to make it look like he hit the target. When reviewing your data, don’t fall victim to the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. The benefit or danger of a tool comes from the person wielding it. Like a shovel, it can dig a hole or it can kill zombies. The Manager says to the accountant, “What’s 2+2?” The accountant replies, “what do you want it to be?”ĭata is a tool.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |