Archives for May 19, 2022

Also Known as: Sharpshooter Fallacy

Description:

This fallacy occurs when it is concluded that a cluster in a set of data must be the result of a cause (typically whatever the cluster is clustered around). This fallacy has the following form:

 

Premise 1: A cluster L occurs in data set D around C.

Conclusion: Therefore, C is the cause of L.

 

This causal fallacy occurs because the conclusion is drawn without properly considering alternatives. One ignored alternative is that the cluster might be the result of chance. Another ignored alternative is that the cluster might be the result of a cause, but not the claimed cause.

A cluster can provide grounds for considering a causal hypothesis that can then be properly tested. However, this correlation does not establish causation. Given the role that correlation (in this case, clustering) plays, this fallacy could be considered a variation of the Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. However, Texas Sharpshooter has a history of its own that warrants its inclusion under its own name.

The fallacy’s name is derived from a joke about a person (usually a Texan) who shoots away at the broad side of a barn. He then paints a target around the biggest cluster of bullet holes and claims to be a sharpshooter. This creates the illusion that he is a good shot, just as focusing on clusters and ignoring the rest of the data can create the impression of a causal connection. As such, this fallacy can also be seen like Incomplete Evidence in that when a person “draws the target” what is outside the target is conveniently ignored. Since Texas sharpshooter is specifically a causal fallacy, it can be distinguished from the more general fallacy of Incomplete Evidence in this way.

This fallacy can be committed in good faith, out of ignorance of how to engage in good causal reasoning. It can also be used intentionally in bad faith, to try to prove a claim. For example, a person trying to prove that something causes a disease might examine data until they find the clustering that appears to “prove” their claim. As with any fallacy of reasoning, the conclusion could be true. The problem is that the evidence offered fails to support it.

 

Defense: To avoid being taken in by this fallacy, the defense is to consider whether adequate evidence is offered for the data based causal claim or if the only evidence is the clustering. If you are unsure, the rational thing to do is suspend judgment. It is also important to not fall for applying the fallacy incorrectly. For example, a person who wants to reject a causal claim might wrongly insist that the clustering must be the result of this fallacy.

 

Example #1

Rich: “Hmm, this data shows that the number of cases of cancer in Old Town is greater than the national average.”

Alice: “Interesting. Do you have any data that is more precise?”

Rich: “Indeed, look at this graphic. As you can see, it shows a significant clustering of cases near the paper mill.”

Alice: “Wow! Those poor people!”

Rich: “You know makes it really bad?”

Alice: “What?”

Rich: “The housing around the mill is for retired senior citizens!”

Alice: “Wait, what?”

 

Example #2

Michelle: “I was reading through the predictions of Nostradamus. He must have been able to see the future because his predictions came true.”

Hilda: “What did he get right?”

Michelle: “Well, he predicted Hitler. He said ‘Beasts wild with hunger will cross the rivers, The greater part of the battle will be against Hister. He will cause great men to be dragged in a cage of iron, When the son of Germany obeys no law.’”

Hilda: “Wow, that is amazing! ‘Hister’ is close to ‘Hitler’, he was German…well close enough anyway and he did cross rivers.”

Michelle: “Like I said, he made those predictions because he could see the future.”

Hilda: “Did all his predictions come true? That book you have is huge.”

Michelle: “Well, he did write hundreds of predictions and only a few have come true. But he was seeing the future so it will take a while for them all to come true. The important thing is that he got Hitler and some other things right so far!”

Fran: “You know that ‘Hister’ is just the Latin name for the Danube River, right? Also, your translation is a bit off. In any case…”

Michelle: “Shut up!”

Description:

Rationalization occurs when a person offers a reason in support of a claim when it is not their actual reason for accepting the claim. This claim might be, for example, that they were right in taking some action. To distinguish this from straightforward lying, rationalization involves self-deception. It has the following general form:

 

Premise 1: Reason R1 is presented by person P for claim C or Action A.

Premise 2: P’s real reason for accepting C or doing A is R2.

Premise 3: P attempts to deceive themselves that they believe C or did A because of R1.

Conclusion: Therefore, (P accepts that) C is true or A as justified based on R1.

 

While someone can aid another in rationalizing, this fallacy is typically self-inflicted. In the standard version, a person engages in self-deception about their true reason for accepting a claim. For example, a politician might support a bill because they dislike the people targeted by the bill but tell themselves that they are doing it “for the children” or “for the people.”

This fallacy can appear like Noble Motive. This is because  it uses a laudable reason to justify an action or acceptance of a claim when the person’s actual motivation would not sound as good to themselves and others. The difference between the two fallacies is that Noble Motive involves inferring that a claim is true, or something is correct because of an alleged noble motive for believing the claim or acting.

In the case of Rationalization, a person is trying to convince themselves and perhaps others that their reason for believing or doing something is good (or at least not bad). They could then go on to use a Noble Motive fallacy to claim that because their professed (but not true) motive is good, their claim is true, or their action is good.

What distinguishes Rationalization from outright lying is that rationalization is usually characterized as involving an attempt at self-deception. That is, the person rationalizing accepts, at least on some level, the professed reason as being the actual reason.

Rationalizing can blur the boundary between good faith and bad faith reasoning. On the one hand, the person rationalizing would usually have some understanding of what they are doing and thus be acting in bad faith. But if they deceive themselves successfully, then they would believe they are acting from the professed reason, which might seem like good faith.

Some people define “rationalization” in a way that does not require self-deception but merely the presentation of a reason that is not the person’s actual reason. In this case, showing that a person is rationalizing does not require showing that self-deception is involved. All that is needed is evidence that the actual and professed reasons are not the same. This would, of course, be a case of simple lying.

 

Defense: Determining when a person is Rationalizing can be challenging. Doing so requires establishing that the person’s professed reason is not their true reason and that they are engaged in self-deception. This would generally require knowing the person well enough to understand their real reason and to recognize they are engaged in self-deception. In some cases, a person’s professed reason will conflict with other claims or actions, which might indicate they are Rationalizing. But it might also indicate other fallacies or simple inconsistency.

If someone is trying to determine if they are Rationalizing, the difficulty of doing so depends on their capacity for honest self-reflection. When people rationalize, they often find it difficult to accept that they are doing so. After all, they will be putting effort into convincing themselves that their actual reason is their professed reason. While it can be difficult, it is wise to be on guard against this tendency to avoid self-deception. The basic defense is to ask yourself: “is this really why I believe this?” or “is this really why I am doing this?”

 

Example #1

Rick: “Man, gas prices are going up.”

Mick: “They sure are. I’ve been driving less.”

Rick: “I’m going to buy a motorcycle. They get excellent gas mileage. I’ll save a lot of money.”

Mick: “Good idea. Are you selling your car?”

Rick: “Well, no. I’ll need it when the weather is bad and to transport stuff.”

Mick: “Makes sense. So, what kind are you getting? Since you are trying to save money, I assume you’ll be getting the least expensive bike.”

Rick: “This is the one I’m looking at.”

Mick: “Hmm, that is a $25,000 sports bike.”

Rick: “It gets better mileage than my car. I’ll save a ton of money on gas.”

Mick: “But it is $25,000…”

Rick: “Look at this, that is the helmet I ordered. I also got a full racing grade riding suit and these top-grade leather boots. The motorcycle trailer is on back order, but it should get here in two weeks.”

Mick: “You’ll sure save a lot of money with all that stuff.”

Rick: “Yup. See, here is the gas mileage for the bike. Way better than my car. Heck, it is even better than a Prius.”

Mick: “Hey, you could buy one of those and save even more money.”

Rick: “A Prius? Seriously? I might as well get neutered.”

 

Example #2

Jack: “Happy birthday! I got you the new Zbox 720 and an HD TV!”

Cynthia: “But I don’t play video games. You do. But the TV is nice. I can put it in my workout room.”

Jack: “Um, the TV is for the Zbox.”

Cynthia: “Um, why would you be playing your Zbox in my workout room?”

Jack: ‘I won’t. The TV and the Zbox are for my man cave.”

Cynthia: “How is this a present for me?”

Jack: “Well, you are always complaining that I am playing my video games when you want to watch TV. This way you get a great gift: I’ll be in my man cave playing my Zbox 720 on the HD TV while you are watching TV.”

Cynthia: “My, this is the best present ever.”

Jack: “I know! I just knew that this would be the best gift for your birthday!”