Cherry picking
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.
Cherry picking has a negative connotation as the practice neglects, overlooks or directly suppresses evidence that could lead to a complete picture.
[4] A story about the 5th century BCE atheist philosopher Diagoras of Melos says how, when shown the votive gifts of people who had supposedly escaped death by shipwreck by praying to gods, he pointed out that many people had died at sea in spite of their prayers, yet these cases were not likewise commemorated[5] (this is an example of survivorship bias).
Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) in his essay on prophecies comments on people willing to believe in the validity of supposed seers: I see some who are mightily given to study and comment upon their almanacs, and produce them to us as an authority when anything has fallen out pat; and, for that matter, it is hardly possible but that these alleged authorities sometimes stumble upon a truth amongst an infinite number of lies.
... [N]obody records their flimflams and false prognostics, forasmuch as they are infinite and common; but if they chop upon one truth, that carries a mighty report, as being rare, incredible, and prodigious.
[6]Cherry picking is one of the epistemological characteristics of denialism and widely used by different science denialists to seemingly contradict scientific findings.
Because research cannot be done live and is often untimely, cherry-picked facts or quotes usually stick in the public mainstream and, even when corrected, lead to widespread misrepresentation of groups targeted.
Philosophy professor Peter Suber has written:The one-sidedness fallacy does not make an argument invalid.
[11]Card stacking is a propaganda technique that seeks to manipulate audience perception of an issue by emphasizing one side and repressing another.
The technique is commonly used in persuasive speeches by political candidates to discredit their opponents and to make themselves seem more worthy.
