Logical Theology

…considered thoughts and opinions

Archive for the tag “biased”

Cherry Picking Part 2

Now that we have a better understanding of what cherry picking is, let us now turn to how this fallacy can be committed within Christian discourse. Consider the following examples:

Example 1:

Martha says, “Have you heard about Fairbanks Christian University and what they teach?”

Jason replies, “I have heard of them, but I do not know much about what they teach. What have you learned?”

Martha replies, “The university appears to offer many good programs for their students. However, the faculty and leadership do not teach traditional Christian doctrine. In fact, many of the things they teach are so obviously wrong that it amazes me that so many people go to their university. If you would like, I can send you an article detailing their false beliefs.”

Jason responds, “Yes, I would like that. Thank you!”

Jason later receives Martha’s email. As he reads the article, it sound convincing. However, knowing the importance of not uncritically accepting what one is told, he decides to do some research and put Martha’s evidence to the test. After he does his homework, he tells his wife:“Having done all this research, I can say for a fact that Martha’s article was quoting the University’s statements out of context and making it appear that they believed things that they might not really believe. I still don’t know whether or not the University believes orthodox or unorthodox doctrines, but I cannot trust an article that does not quote in context and does not fairly evaluate the University’s statements.”

Is Jason’s response justified? Absolutely. It may well be that the University’s faculty and leaders do believe some unorthodox doctrines. It also may be true that the University’s leaders publicly teach those doctrines. However, it is important to accurately and fairly represent what people are saying and teaching. Selectively looking at only specific fragments of an entire speech, pulling these statements out of context, and basing your conclusion on those statements is fallacious.

When responding to someone, it is important to be sure that you are quoting them accurately and in the correct context. If the article Martha sent Jason was selectively picking and choosing what statements to attack, and not fairly considering them in their correct context and not considering the speech in its entirety, those who wrote the article would be engaging in cherry picking.

It may be that these individuals believe something completely different; however, we would not be able to tell simply by reading a biased article that lifted their quotes out of context.

Example 2:

Bob says, “Matthew, what do you think about the topic of the millennial reign of Christ? Is there a position which you agree with or do you think that we cannot know for sure?”

Matthew replies, “Yes I do have a viewpoint. Having studied the three competing positions—pre-millennialism, post-millennialism, and not trying to explain it because we can’t know for sure, I believe that the pre-millennial view is accurate. I have looked into the arguments for the other two views, and I do not find them nearly as convincing as the arguments in favor of pre-millennialism.”

After Bob and Matthew finish talking, Bob goes back to his house and does some research into the subject himself. He discovers that there are alternative views which Matthew did not address. Bob therefore says, “I need to look at these other views and see what they have to say before I can make a firm decision on this issue.”

Is Bob’s decision the correct one? Yes it is. There are multiple positions which Christians adopt on the subject of Christian Eschatology and the millennial reign of Christ. It is therefore important to look at all points of view before arriving at a conclusion. Matthew attempted to list the positions that Christians take on this subject and provide his reasons for accepting one and rejecting the others. However, he did not take all the positions into account, for example, amillennialism. He therefore has committed the cherry picking fallacy. Though this was probably done unintentionally, the fact that people can neglect to consider all points of view is one reason why we need to look at the evidence for ourselves. It is a mistake to accept someone’s assessment of a topic uncritically, especially when there are multiple interpretations and conclusions which people draw on a subject. Let us consider one more example:

Example 3:

Frank says, “I thank you for your explanation of your beliefs; however, I am not interested in accepting Christianity.”

Mary replies, “Why not? I would really like to know what you base your rejection of Christianity on.”

Frank responds, “I base my rejection on the fact that pastors are charlatans and hypocrites, and almost all Christians are hypocrites as well. I could go on and on about how many pastors are just trying to get their flocks to give them all their money and then use it to satisfy their selfish desires instead of glorifying God, which they claim to do. Then there are all the Christians who claim that God requires people to live a godly and morally good life, and then they turn around and do the exact opposite of what they claim to promote. It is for these reasons that I reject Christianity.”

Many replies, “Well, I don’t see how you can be so sure that all pastors and almost all Christians are hypocrites. It may be that all the ones you have encountered are that way. However, I don’t see how you can say that you have met enough to justify such a broad conclusion.”

Mary’s statements are of course correct. It is an example of the cherry picking fallacy to use a limited pool of information, in this case the limited people Frank has encountered, and then draw a conclusion about the entire whole. There are other fallacies in Frank’s statement, but let’s focus on the cherry picking fallacy. Can Frank honestly say that “all” pastors are charlatans and hypocrites? He did not say that some are. Rather, he just says that “pastors are charlatans and hypocrites,” which implies that they all are that way. Has Frank personally met every pastor and discovered that they are as he sees them to be? Of course not. Therefore, his statement is committing the cherry picking fallacy because he is only considering the examples of bad pastors he has encountered and overlooking all the good ones.

His statement that “almost all Christians are hypocrites as well” commits the cherry picking fallacy for the same reason. Is his pool of information large or small? If small and limited, and if he is refusing to consider the possibility that some might not fit his stereotype, he has indeed committed the cherry picking fallacy. Even if it were true that “almost all Christians” had acted hypocritically at some point in their lives, it hardly follows that “almost all Christians” consistently act that way. If Frank’s argument were true, one wonders why he restricts it to just Christianity, as if Christians are the only hypocrites in the world. However, the fact remains that the personal failings of an individual do not invalidate what they say. To think otherwise is to commit another fallacy, namely the Tu Quoque fallacy.

The Bottom Line: Selectively looking at and only considering the evidence which agrees with your beliefs and ideas, while ignoring evidence and alternative points of view which disagree with your beliefs and ideas is a logical fallacy.

Advertisements

Cherry Picking

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy in which an individual presents a one-sided argument, overlooking and possibly ignoring competing arguments, in a situation where objectivity should be required.

There are certain cases in which it is perfectly fine to present a one-sided argument, such as in advertising. In advertising a product, a company does not need to discuss the competing products.  All they need to do is to present you with the reasons why you should purchase and consume their product. However, in many situations, it is fallacious to present a one-sided argument.  This is particularly true in matters of science, news, personal faith and beliefs.  If you are attempting to convince someone that something they believe is mistaken and that what you believe is correct, you need to fairly evaluate the arguments on all sides of the debate.  Neglecting or refusing to do so is fallacious.

To better see how someone can commit this particular fallacy, consider the following examples:

Example 1:

Bob says, “In my opinion, Libertarians have some serious problems with their beliefs.”

Jason replies, “What do you find problematic with their beliefs?”

Bob responds, “For starters, they support legalizing drugs including pot.  In my opinion, anyone who would want to completely legalize all drugs does not realize the dangers that would pose to society.”

How has Bob committed the cherry picking fallacy?  His response assumes two things about Libertarians: 1) that they all want to legalize marijuana and 2) that they all support legalization of “all drugs.”  This is in fact false.  It may be that the Libertarian Party itself supports the legalization of marijuana and other drugs.  However, Bob did not direct his statements to the Libertarian Party but to “Libertarians.”  The problem here is that not all Libertarians agree on the same issues; for example, some only support the legalization of marijuana but not other drugs. Therefore, Bob’s argument is overlooking important evidence that has resulted in him committing the cherry picking fallacy.  It is important to make sure that we are considering all the available evidence before we draw our conclusions.  Bob probably was not aware that he was committing this fallacy, which shows that the fallacy can be committed inadvertently.  All the more reason to be sure we have taken all the available evidence into consideration.  Consider another example of this fallacy:

Example 2:

Jennifer says, “A few days ago there was a protest that got very violent.  Cars were burned, windows were broken, and the police were assaulted by the protestors.  The police rightly responded by arresting over two hundred protestors and putting an end to the disorder.  Frankly, I am tired of these protestors behaving this way and something needs to be done to stop it.”

Jill replies, “I think you are overlooking something important.  Virtually all of the protestors were nonviolent and were not causing any trouble.  It was only a select few individuals who broke windows, burned cars, and assaulted the police.  Instead of arresting these few individuals, the police used the incident to arrest hundreds of innocent protestors en masse and disperse the rest.  So the police grossly over-responded to the few acts of violence. You really need to have all the information before you make your statements.”

If what Jill said is true, Jennifer’s statements were hasty and demonstrated a lack of information about the subject under discussion.  It is very important to possess all the relevant information before drawing a conclusion.  Perhaps Jennifer made her mistake because she watched a slanted news program or read a biased news article about the protest.  This is why it is important to seek out more than one single source of information and to rely on trusted sources to give you an unbiased presentation of the evidence.  Not doing so can cause you to accidentally commit the cherry picking fallacy.  Cherry picking fallacies can be committed deliberately, as with the news reports that Jennifer possibly read.  To better see this, consider another example:

Example 3:

Mitch has published a paper in a scientific journal about the number of people who believe that advanced alien life exists on other planets.  In the paper, Mitch says, “Our scientific survey has demonstrated that over 35% of people within the United States believe that advanced alien life exists on other planets.”

When Jason reads Mitch’s article, he turns to his wife and says, “I am a good friend with someone who worked on Mitch’s team.  She told me that Mitch only polled 200 individuals and that most of them were science fiction fans.  Therefore, I think that Mitch’s results are clearly biased.”

If what Jason says is true, then Mitch’s finding are suspect and do not provide enough evidence to support his conclusion.  The fact that he polled mostly science fiction fans means that  his results are more likely to be biased, due to the fact that science fiction fans probably believe in advanced alien life more than the average person.  Even if he did not poll mostly science fiction fans, the pool was limited to only 200 people.  Are the opinions of 200 people really enough to determine what the range of opinion is within the entire United States?  Obviously, Mitch’s article has committed the cherry picking fallacy.

The Bottom Line: Selectively looking at and considering only one side of an argument, or selectively considering only the data that agrees with your opinion, while failing to recognize and evaluate competing points of view, is a logical fallacy.  The fallacy may be committed either deliberately or accidentally, but it is the same mistake either way.

Logical Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem Part 2

Now that we better understand the Circumstantial Ad Hominem, let us consider how this fallacy can be committed within a Christian setting:

Example 1:

Mitch says, “In my opinion, position X provides the best framework from which to accurately interpret the Bible. I believe this to be true because of the large amount of evidence that supports position X.”

Rebecca replies, “It is not surprising that you accept position X, because you are employed at a Bible college which requires its faculty to accept that position.  Therefore, because you are simply saying what you are required to say, I will look for an unbiased presentation of position X before I decide whether or not to accept it.”

Understanding Rebecca’s mistake:

See how Rebecca is not rejecting position X but is in fact, rejecting Mitch’s presentation of it due to her perception of Mitch’s motives. As already stated, just because someone is required to believe something in order to hold their position, that does not make their arguments invalid, nor does it excuse you from having to look at and consider their argument. It is true that in some cases, we are justified in seeking an unbiased source, as in the case of Michael Jordan being paid to endorse Wheaties.  However, it is still fallacious to completely dismiss what someone is saying because of bias on their part. Refusing to consider an argument even if you know the speaker is biased, can be faulty logic as well.

Let us now see what specifically was wrong with Rebecca’s statement:

Just because Mitch is required to hold to a particular world-view in order to keep his position, this does not necessarily mean that he is biased and therefore can’t be trusted to give a fair analysis of the evidence for and against position X.  After all, it is a stereotype to think that people who attend groups and colleges with doctrinal statement can not be trusted to fairly present both sides of an argument. This stereotype is false because people can be required to accept a belief and still be fair in their analysis of the evidence. They can also be willing to change if shown to be wrong.

Example 2: 

Kimberly says, “I believe that the leadership of the Catholic Church is making some mistakes in how they govern their churches. For example…”

Kate interrupts: “You would think and say that, for your denomination disagrees strongly with what the Catholic Church teaches.”

Understanding Kate’s mistake:

Kate’s reply assumes that Kimberly’s denomination is teaching its people to think and talk negatively about the Catholic Church. In Kate’s mind, this negates what Kimberly is saying. This is a logical mistake because even if Kimberly’s denomination is teaching its people to view the Catholic Church negatively, that does not rebut Kimberly’s statement. It could very well be that Kimberly’s statement about the Catholic Church is true. If this in fact is the case, then her negative view of the Catholic Church is irrelevant.

Notice also how Kate rudely interrupted Kimberly and dismissed her argument before giving her a chance to defend herself. This too is fallacious.

In conclusion, it is a mistake to dismiss an individual’s argument simply because of perceived bias on their part.  Don’t interrupt them.  Give them a chance to present what could be a good argument. While you may prefer to hear it from an unbiased source, even the fact that someone is biased does not automatically mean you have a good reason to reject what they have to say.


Logical Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem Part 1

The Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy occurs when someone rejects an argument simply because of a perceived bias on that person’s part.

This is a mistake in logic because even if the arguer is biased towards accepting or rejecting an argument, that does not necessarily invalidate the argument itself. While it is true that in some cases, bias can discredit someone, that does not mean the argument itself has been refuted.

To better understand this common mistake, lets consider a few examples:

              Example 1:

  •  John argues, “Michael Jordan appeared in a commercial endorsing Wheaties breakfast cereal. Since he is a famous athlete, it is safe to conclude that he is endorsing Wheaties because he was paid a large sum of money to endorse the product. Therefore, the product is worthless because famous people would not be recommending products unless they were being paid to do so.”

Understanding John’s mistake:

Michael Jordan may well have said what he did about Wheaties only because he was paid to say it;  however, that does not mean he doesn’t eat Wheaties and enjoy them every day for breakfast.  It simply means that people should not accept Michael Jordan’s endorsement uncritically.

It is safe to assume that product advertisements are not usually going to give you logical reasons to purchase the product. In most cases they will attempt to motivate your emotional desires, wants, and needs, often using appeals to authority to close the sale. However, that fact alone does not prove that their products are “good” or bad for that matter.

Therefore, John’s argument must be seen as fallacious.

Example 2:

  •  Todd says, “I don’t believe that the gods of any of the world’s religions exist.”
  • Mary responds, “You disbelieve in any deities because, as president of the University Atheists Association, you are required to say that. Therefore, I am not listening to anything you have to say on this subject.”

Understanding Mary’s mistake:

Even if Todd was required to be an atheist in order to be the president of the University Atheists Association (as opposed merely to being non-religious or agnostic), would that automatically make him unable to provide an unbiased and reliable defense of atheism? Not any more than being the president of a Jewish university means that all your arguments in support of Judaism are unreliable. Just because someone is required to believe something in order to hold their position does not make their arguments invalid.

Example 3:

  • Steve says, “I just finished interviewing Bob, and he seems to be the perfect man for the job. What do you think?”
  • Sarah responds, “I think hiring him would be a big mistake. He claims to be a very honest and hard-working man. However, did he tell you that he was fired from his last three jobs for being disrespectful to his bosses? I think you should find someone else because he deliberately neglected to be honest about his past experiences.”

Did Sarah commit a Circumstantial Ad Hominem? 

No, she did not. In this case, the situation does affect Bob’s arguments. Bob argued that he is an honest, hard-working man; however, the reality is that his bad attitude got him fired three times already. Therefore, unless new information can be given which shows a change in Bob’s character, Steve would be justified in not hiring him. Thus, arguing that the situation rebuts an individual’s statements is not always fallacious, but because it can be, you must always think before you speak and make sure that the situation truly does rebut someone’s argument.

Post Navigation