Cherry Picking
Carefully selecting what evidence to present and what evidence to ignore with the purpose of making an argument appear stronger.
AKA: single-entry bookkeeping, card stacking, incomplete evidence
According to combined results from Gallup polls in 2015, only 9% of Americans consider themselves Christian. That’s even fewer than the 17% who do not consider themselves religious at all. Is this a result of the war on Christmas? Is the liberal media confusing audiences into abandoning the church? Maybe it’s those elitist college professors, poisoning young minds against the Bible.
No, no, and no. It’s just a cherry-picked read of the full Gallup results:
- Protestant 38%
- Christian (nonspecific) 9%
- Catholic 23%
- Jewish 2%
- Mormon 2%
- Other 6%
- None 17%
- No answer 4%
Protestant, Christian, and Catholic represent represent 70% together. The original statement was misleading because it left out important information, even though the small amount of information it contained was more or less true. There is even more data in this report, but you don’t need to explain everything in complete detail to avoid the fallacy. That would be cumbersome, if not impossible. The fallacy isn’t about how much information you provide, but whether or not you purposefully ignore information that goes against your argument.
The anti-vaccination crowd are big fans of cherry picking. (Fallacies become crucial when you have no evidence on your side.) The modern hysteria surrounding vaccines started in 1998 when a research paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield was published in the medical journal The Lancet. Wakefield’s twelve patient case study suggested a connection between autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR.) Wakefield called for the three-in-one vaccine to be replaced by individual shots spread out over years. “It’s a moral issue for me. I can’t support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination, until this issue has been resolved.”
Wakefield was correct about there being an issue with morality. As was ultimately revealed by investigative journalist Brian Deer, Wakefield was secretly being paid by a lawyer named Richard Barr who wanted to start a class action lawsuit against the MMR vaccine manufacturers. Barr kindly reminded Wakefield of this in a letter:“I have mentioned to you before that the prime objective is to produce unassailable evidence in court so as to convince a court that these vaccines are dangerous.” Wakefield had also filed a patent for his own measles vaccine. There would be no market for such a product, unless of course people suddenly had a reason to fear the MMR vaccine.
Wakefield’s lack of morality goes further still. There’s the five days of invasive tests he conducted on the children, including anaesthesia, colonoscopies, and lumbar punctures. There are rules in place to protect patients from such a barrage, but Wakefield chose to ignore them. He failed the seek approval by the appropriate ethics committee to run all of these tests, because the answer would have been no. When submitting his research to The Lancet, he lied about receiving approval since the journal would never have published his case study otherwise.
But hey, does the greed, bias, and callous disregard for ethics really matter if the research was solid and lead to medical gains? It’s not a comfortable thought, but it doesn’t actually matter here because the results were fabricated anyway. This was partially done through cherry picking. According to Nicholas Chadwick, a graduate student who worked in the Wakefield’s lab, he “tended to shrug his shoulders. Even in lab meetings he would only talk about data that supported his hypothesis. Once he had his theory, he stuck to it no matter what.”
Despite the research being exposed as fraudulent, the anti-vaccination movement remained. The organization SafeMinds funded a long-term investigation into vaccines from 2003-2010 with around $250,000. Researchers vaccinated baby monkeys and then observed their behavior and their brains for any abnormalities. Thanks to SafeMinds, we can add to the pile one very well conducted long-term experiment showing no link between vaccines and autism. That and some dead rhesus monkeys. Separate piles.
So far, nothing to poke at. SafeMinds had a hypothesis, they funded the research, the findings didn’t confirm their belief. The cherry picking comes in the response of SafeMinds president Sallie Bernard: “We feel that embedded within these data sets there are animals that have potentially an adverse reaction to this vaccine schedule that would mirror what happens in human infants."
Oh is that what you feel Bernard? The neat thing about data is that it doesn't give a damn about your feelings. And if you need to rip through mountains of data refuting your point before finding a small hint that you could be correct if only the results you were just searching through in the first place never existed, you are not correct. However, this is the perfect metaphor to describe the anti-vaccine movement. Also notice that Bernard states that infants have an adverse reaction to vaccines as if it is a fact while discussing her own failed attempt to prove exactly that.
Onto the next example. Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on March 26, 2015. The law strengthened the ability to use religion as a legal defense. Democrats had attempted to include a stipulation preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but to no avail. This left many concerned that the law might allow for such discrimination. Critics suggested the law was a follow up to the failed attempt by conservatives to amend the Indiana constitution to ban same-sex marriage. They saw it as a gift to supporters of Indiana Republicans who were promised a big win against the LGBTQ community, but didn’t ever get one.
A few days after the signing, Pence appeared on the ABC News program This Week to defend the law. Host George Stephanopoulos gave the governor an opportunity to put everyone’s mind at ease. All Pence had to do was answer the question about whether or not the law would allow for discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Pence repeatedly refused to answer. Instead, he cherry picked which parts of the law everyone should care about. To Pence, the law is perfect as long as you focus on the freedom it provides and not the discrimination. He doesn’t even argue that the good outweighs the bad, but only that we should ignore the bad.
The following descriptions and excerpts from the interview may seem repetitive. They are. Pence never answers the question, so Stephanopoulos doesn’t stop asking.
Pence begins by claiming the law is similar to many others, even one supported by Barack Obama when he was a senator. Stephanopoulos challenges him on that point:
Your civil rights laws don't include sexual orientation as a protected class. And even some of the supporters of the bill who were—who appeared with you when you signed the bill, Eric Miller of Advanced America wrote that “It will protect those who oppose gay marriage.” So this is a yes or no question. Is Advance America right when they say a florist in Indiana can now refuse to serve a gay couple without fear of punishment?
Pence says in his response, “the purpose of this legislation...is very simply to empower individuals when they believe that actions of government impinge on their constitutional First Amendment freedom of religion.” Also adding, “this is not about discrimination.”
Stephanopoulos tries again. “And so yes or no, if a florist in Indiana refuses to serve a gay couple at their wedding, is that legal now in Indiana?”
PENCE: George, this is, this is where this debate has gone, with, with misinformation and frankly...
STEPHANOPOULOS: It's just a question, sir. Yes or no?
PENCE: There's been shameless rhetoric about my state and about this law and about its intention all over the Internet. People are trying to make it about one particular issue. And now you're doing that, as well.
Stephanopoulos again refers to the claim that a florist could refuse service to homosexuals under the law. “Is that true or not?”
Pence then whines a bit about how mean people have been to him since he passed a law that takes basic rights away from gay people and has refused to clarify how it will work. He complains about the U.S. focusing on tolerance for people “on the left,” and concludes with “tolerance is a two way street.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: So when you say tolerance is a two way street, does that mean that Christians who want to refuse service or people of any other faith who want to refuse service to gays and lesbians, that it's now legal in the state of Indiana? That's the simple yes or no question.
Pence again refuses to answer the question and again moans about people focusing on the wrong part of the bill. “The question here is if there is a government action or a law that an individual believes impinges on their religious liberty, they have the opportunity to go to court.”
Stephanopoulos tries again. “One fix that people have talked about is simply adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the state's civil rights laws. Will you push for that?”
PENCE: I will not push for that. That's not on my agenda and that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One suggested fix to the law would say that, "this chapter of the law does not establish or eliminate a defense to a claim under any federal, state or local law protecting civil rights or preventing discrimination."
PENCE: George, look, we're not going to change the law, OK?
Pence walks back a little and says he would sign a bill adding a section that “clarifies what the law really is.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: A final question, a final yes or no question, Governor. Do you think it should be legal in the state of Indiana to discriminate against gays or lesbians?
PENCE: George...
STEPHANOPOULOS: It's a yes or no question.
This time, Pence offers what will probably be the greatest answer to an interview question of his entire political career. (It's a bold claim, but wait till you read the quote.) Pence explains that discrimination is not an issue because people from Indiana don’t discriminate.
Hoosiers don't believe in discrimination. I mean the way I was raised, in a small town in Southern Indiana, is you're kind and caring and respectful to everyone. Anybody that's been in Indiana for five minutes knows that Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan, it's a reality. People tell me when I travel around the country, gosh, I went to your state and people are so nice. I mean this is not about discrimination. This is about protecting the religious liberty of every Hoosier of every faith. And we're going to continue to work our hearts out to clarify that to the people of Indiana and the people of this great country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes or no, should it be legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians?
PENCE: George, you're following the mantra of the last week online and you're trying to make this issue about something else.
Despite a valiant effort by George Stephanopoulos (whose name coincidentally is an anagram of People R Honest Go USA Go,) Gov. Mike Pence (anagram of I am Lord Voldmort) would not let go of his fallacy (not uncommon for men of his maturity level.) He didn’t argue that the pros outweigh the cons. He didn’t claim that the law wouldn’t actually allow discrimination. His argument was that the law is perfect as long as you only thin about some of it. The spirit of the law was somehow more important than that actual impact it would have on real people.
Many saw the threat of discrimination and Pence’s refusal to address it as cause for concern. Hosting an event in Indiana or sending people there for any reason meant a risk of legalized discrimination for your employees and customers. A handful of Mayors and Governors restricted city/state-sponsored travel to Indiana after the law passed. Apple, NASCAR, NCAA, and others voiced their opposition. Salesforce and Angie’s List put expansion plans in Indiana on hold. Planners of major annual events like Gen Con threatened to move to another state. Performers including the band Wilco canceled shows. It was almost as if people thought discrimination was a bad thing.
Eventually Pence gave in and signed a revised bill adding protections against discrimination. The economic risks to Indiana had become too high to ignore. Either that or he’s a huge Wilco fan. Either way, in true phallus phasion Pence refused to admit the bill was ever flawed and continued blaming everyone but himself:
Over the past week this law has become a subject of great misunderstanding and controversy across our state and nation. However we got here, we are where we are, and it is important that our state take action to address the concerns that have been raised and move forward.
What a jackass.
controversy — Yes, because the bill handed rights to some citizens while taking away rights from others.
misunderstanding — Yes, because when asked to help everyone understand the bill, you refused.
however we got here — Is that a fucking joke? We got here because you gave one group the right to discriminate against another group and refused to answer questions about it!
Usually cherry picking involves a little bit of hope. You’re hoping that no one notices the evidence being ignored. You’re hoping no one brings it up. Other times, you might have a little more control. If you are the only one who has certain information, all you have to do is keep it for yourself. This suppression of evidence is a little more devious and opportunistic than your garden variety cherry picking.
For an example of suppressing evidence we go to the Supreme Court ruling on Texas Bill HB2, the goal of which was to shut down abortion clinics in the the state by forcing doctors and facilities to meet medically unnecessary and onerous standards. Conservatives argued there was not enough evidence available to prove the law creates an undue burden to women seeking an abortion, and therefore no reason to strike it down. In the end, a 5-3 ruling did strike it down, allowing the case to become more powerful than conservatives could’ve possibly imagined by threatening other similar or future laws in other states.
The argument that there was not enough evidence was absurd anyway. Between the presented data, briefs, and basic common sense, there was no way to look at this law intelligently and conclude that it would improve women’s health and not cause unnecessary health risks. You would have to be dead not to see that, and only one justice could use that excuse. (Too soon?)
However, there still should have been more available evidence prior to the court’s ruling. A spokesperson for the Texas Department of Health Services explained "the data is not final. If the data were final, we would release it. We hope to have it finalized soon." But another state employee reached out to NBC News alleging that the information was finalized and the department was suppressing the data. The employee backed up that claim with emails and screenshots. Researchers were even asked to compile the data earlier than usual, saying "they definitely wanted the abortion data earlier."
Presumably, officials rushed the compiling of the evidence, saw something in it that could be bad for the state’s case, and chose not to release it yet. If we were to discount the whistleblower, this could all be a coincidence, but it fits right in with the argument of the state and the conservative judges. Here’s Dr. Daniel Grossman, a key witness in the case: "During the trial, Texas said our data couldn't be trusted because these weren't official statistics and that we had to wait for the official statistics to come out. It did seem ironic that they had the information."
So it starts with regular cherry picking, a lame excuse for ignoring the available information. Then it gets turned up a notch with evidence suppression, refusing to release information that could be used against the state’s argument.
And what was in that suppressed report anyway? If the data wasn’t too damning for the conservatives, that could suggest they weren’t suppressing the data afterall. When the data was eventually released, that was not the case. Under the law, second trimester abortions increased by 27%. These later abortions come with higher risks of complications. This data would have absolutely crushed the already weak argument that the Texas law was somehow protecting women’s health.
Dr. Grossman explained that the originally suppressed official report had similar findings to the research conservatives cherry picked as unsuitable.
In our research, we documented cases of women who were delayed into the second trimester because it took them time to find an open clinic or to arrange transportation to a more distant clinic, while others were delayed because of the long wait times to even get an appointment.
The official report also raised concerns about women attempting to induce an abortion on their own, often with pills sold as ulcer medication across the border in Mexico. According to Grossman, “As clinic-based care becomes harder to access in Texas, we can expect more women to feel that they have no other option and take matters into their own hands”
The Texas ACLU had attempted to get the Department of Health Services to release their report before the ruling. After the report was published, ACLU Staff Attorney Trisha Trigilio commented, “It’s clear why lawmakers might have wanted to keep this information out of the public eye before the Supreme Court made its decision.”
Perhaps the opposite of suppressing evidence is something called the broken window fallacy, AKA the glazier’s fallacy. It means cherry picking by ignoring the unseen results of actions not taken.
For a dramatic explanation, we go to a Hollywood vision of the 23rd century. Like most great movie characters, Zorg from The Fifth Element is portrayed by Gary Oldman. Early in the film, Zorg tries to convince a priest that evil is actually good for the world, saying “life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos.” To demonstrate his justification, Zorg knocks a glass off his desk, shattering it across the floor. A team of small robots emerge to clean the mess while he explains:
Look at all these little things, so busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.
This general argument has been used to explain why damages from street graffiti, hurricanes, or even war are positive in the long run. In actuality, it’s probably only good in the short run if at all. It’s certainly not good for the cup. Whatever resources the robots used to clean up the mess could have been used to do something wholly productive, not just reactive. The work they didn’t make the world better than it was before the cup shattered. They only brought back the status quo, but had to expend energy to do it.
The name broken window fallacy comes from the original parable by Frédéric Bastiat. His essay from 1850 titled That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen explained that spending money to mend destruction does not benefit society overall. The general argument being that the same money could have been spent on something else, something more desirable, without having to deal with the pain of destruction. You get the same economic stimulus, plus whatever you chose to purchase.
In the essay, Bastiat describes a shopkeeper whose son breaks a window. Onlookers console the man by pointing out how good this is for the glazier who must be paid to fix the window. Bastiat admits this is a good day for the glazier, but cautions against the belief that this transaction causes a chain reaction that benefits the economy overall.
Yes, the glazier can now use that money to buy bread from the baker, and the baker can in turn get his shoes repaired by the cobbler, and so on. But this only focuses on what is seen; the broken window and the glazier who fixes it. The unseen part is what the shopkeeper could have done with the money if the window was never broken. He could have bought clothes from the tailor, who could then pay the baker, who could pay the cobbler, and the same type of boost to the economy occurs, with one exception. In the broken window version, the shopkeeper gains nothing. There is no net benefit. He only returns to the status quo of a non-broken window. In the second version, he gets new clothes. The broken window forces him to spend money that gets him back where he started while also robbing him of the choice to spend his money on whatever he desires.
Village idiot John Stossel used the glazier’s fallacy once on ABC’s 20/20. Well, he tried at least. He was attempting to debunk Bastiat’s point, or possibly support it, while also claiming that government spending is bad. It’s difficult to summarize because it was an especially shitty and incoherent mess of an argument.
Stossel begins by comparing government spending to paying someone to break windows.
Many people argue that government spending creates jobs...for example if the government spends 70 million dollars on a new road or military aircraft, those projects will employ people. However, there is a problem with this government spending to create jobs theory. Economist call it the broken window fallacy. They say you might as well pay me to do this. [Stossel then throws a rock through a window.] That’ll create jobs!
So, that’s completely wrong and misses the point of the original story: spending that creates a benefit is preferable to spending that fixes damage. Both types of spending stimulate the economy, but only one adds something extra on top of that. In his example, the added bonus could be a new road, which is a hell of a lot more useful than a window being shattered and replaced.
He also twists the story by suggesting we actually pay the rock thrower, comparing this to the government paying people to create something. That’s just entirely moronic. Now you’re paying to cause the damage and to fix the damage, missing two opportunities to have spent money in a productive way. Stossel goes on to further bastardize the fallacy:
That 70 million dollars taken from you now means you have less to spend on a new teapot, or newspapers, or a restaurant. That means fewer jobs for those business. Of course, that loss is less visible.
You pile of rocks, it does not mean that at all. Why would it mean less jobs? If you buy a teapot, you get a teapot, and the teapotter has money to and a need to hire someone, and the money continues moving helping other get jobs. If the government spends the money to pave a road, then we get a newly paved road, the road paver can spend money elsewhere, and the money continues moving helping other get jobs. Both scenarios include a benefit and an improved economy.
For Stossel’s argument to make any sense, the road workers would have to take their pay and flush it down the toilet. Or better yet, the road could be paved by slaves. You’ve probably heard the argument that the civil war was all about economics, not racism. From an economic standpoint, imagine if every slave was actually a paid employee who used their wages to purchase food, shelter, clothing, etc. Wouldn’t that help the economy? Isn’t that the unseen benefit being overlooked? The only economic downside would be for the relatively small number of influential white plantation owners who would have to pay them, so, ahh, right, there you go.
By the way, you can find this full video of Stossel’s argument online. To really appreciate his position, you need hear it in his condescending know-it-all voice while trying not to look at his 70’s pornstar moustache.
Later in the video, Stossel explains “If governments did not spend the funds, taxes would be lower and people would have more money to spend on cars, vacations, whatever they value.” One has to wonder what good that car would be without any roads.
OK, let’s ease up on Stossel a bit. This was an older story, and he did mention the glazier’s fallacy again in a 2005 article, Build it on Your Dime, where he challenges the practice of taxpayer money being used to build sports stadiums. He argues that the owners who stand to profit the most from the stadium should pay to have it built themselves. George W. Bush, for example, was partial owner of the Texas Rangers and had a stadium built with taxpayer money. Stossel also points to economic studies showing that stadiums create relatively few jobs for the amount they cost to build. There are much less costly and more beneficial job creating methods available. Those would be the unseen elements in this case.
A stadium might be better than a rock through a window, but handing money over to people who are so wealthy they own sports teams can’t be anywhere close to the best use of tax money. Keep in mind that not everyone wants a stadium. Traffic concerns are often one reason why. There’s also this little issue of what’s currently on the property the super rich team owners want to build their stadium on. Luckily, it’s usually just crap owned by unimportant poor people, like homes and churches, so it’s easy for the owners or the city to kick them out using eminent domain.
In all of it’s forms, cherry picking is fallacious. Sometimes, this does throw people off a bit. Doesn’t it make sense to only mention the points that benefit your argument? If your goal is to appear correct, then sure, go ahead. But if you actually want to prove you are correct, your argument can’t ignore the facts of the case. If your entire argument can be destroyed by your opponent simply mentioning the details you chose to ignore, you never had a very strong case in the first place. This begs the question, why do you believe in such a weak argument anyway?
That was actually the common yet incorrect usage of the phrase “begs the question.” To see the correct usage, read the next chapter.
If you enjoyed this segment, read the full book HERE!
