Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER
An informal fallacy, also known as the
Clustering Illusion.
It is committed when one draws a conclusion
and paints over it with supporting arguments
or evidences ex post facto to make it look like
there is a pattern; when there is no specific
hypothesis prior to gathering data or when
hypothesis is formed after data is gathered
and analyzed.
Also occurs when the speaker ignores the
differences (that conflict with their argument),
while focuses on the similarities (that do not
conflict with their argument). This can lead to
an inaccurate conclusion.
Much similar to the gamblers fallacy, it can
give meaning to randomness.
It is fallacious because:
1. Findings may well be the result of
chance, in which case it was not caused
by anything; or
2. Even if the cluster is not the result of
chance, there are other possible reasons
for the clustering, other than the cause
chosen.
You can avoid this fallacy by forming
hypothesis prior to gathering data, and by not
ignoring differences in data.
Example:
Nostradamus correctly predicted nearly 500
years ago the death of President John F.
Kennedy, the French Revolution, the reign of
Hitler, and the 9-11 Attacks. He must be a true
prophet.
This statement is fallacious because it frames
Nostradamus to be a prophet based on a few
predictions he may have gotten right when in
reality he has written almost 1000 other
predictions, most of them too vague or
ambiguous to make sense. When we ignore this
fact, the statement appears to be very convincing.