The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is a mistake in reasoning where someone focuses on specific details or patterns that seem to fit their argument while ignoring other important information. The name comes from the idea of a sharpshooter who fires randomly at a barn door and then draws targets around the bullet holes after the fact, making it look like they were aiming for those spots all along.
In other words, this fallacy occurs when someone looks at data or evidence and only pays attention to the parts that support their viewpoint while disregarding anything that contradicts it. This can lead to false conclusions and misunderstandings because they fail to consider all available information.
Awareness of this fallacy can help avoid making assumptions based on incomplete or biased information. After all, it’s always best to consider all sides of an argument before drawing any conclusions.
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy Examples
Here are a few examples of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
- A diet guru suggests that a particular diet can help people lose weight, citing one or two success stories but ignoring all the failures.
- A conspiracy theorist says that certain events are proof of a vast global conspiracy, ignoring all the perfectly rational explanations for those events.
- A sports fan boasts that their team is the best, citing only their team’s wins and ignoring their losses.
- A paranormal investigator claims that a particular ghost story is true, citing only eyewitness accounts supporting their theory and ignoring other explanations.
- A social media influencer claims that a particular brand is the best, citing only their own positive experience and ignoring any other factors that might affect a person’s opinion.
- A politician claims that crime rates have decreased in their district but only looks at statistics from one month, ignoring the rest of the year.
- A scientist claims a particular theory is correct, citing only the experiments supporting their hypothesis and ignoring any conflicting evidence.
- An animal rights activist claims that all animal testing is cruel, citing only the most extreme cases and ignoring the many instances where animal testing has helped save lives.
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy Examples Explained
1. Diet Plan Promotions
A diet guru suggests that a particular diet can help people lose weight, citing one or two success stories but ignoring all the failures.
A person who claims to be an expert on diets suggests that following a specific diet can help people lose weight. However, they only mention one or two examples of people who have succeeded in losing weight by following this diet and ignore all the other cases where it did not work.
They fail to acknowledge that many factors contribute to weight loss, and what works for one person may not work for another. When someone promotes a particular diet without acknowledging the failures and successes, it can be misleading and potentially harmful.
2. Conspiracy Theorists
A conspiracy theorist says that certain events are proof of a vast global conspiracy, ignoring all the perfectly rational explanations for those events.
A conspiracy theorist thinks that certain events are not just coincidences or accidents but part of a bigger plan by influential people to control the world. They often ignore logical explanations for these events and instead believe in far-fetched ideas without solid evidence.
For example, imagine there was an earthquake somewhere. A conspiracy theorist might say it was caused by secret government experiments rather than natural causes like shifting tectonic plates. They might also claim that this is proof of a larger global plot to manipulate people’s lives.
While some conspiracies may be true, many are simply unfounded beliefs based on paranoia and fear.
3. Sports Team Winning Streak
A sports fan boasts that their team is the best, citing only their team’s wins and ignoring their losses.
Have you ever heard someone bragging about their favorite sports team and saying they are the best?
Sometimes, these fans only talk about the games their team has won and ignore any losses. This means they need to look at the whole picture of their team’s performance.
If you only looked at your good grades on a report card and ignored any bad ones, you wouldn’t be getting an accurate view of your overall performance in school.
4. Paranormal Investigators
A paranormal investigator claims that a particular ghost story is true, citing only eyewitness accounts supporting their theory and ignoring other explanations.
A paranormal investigator looks into things considered spooky or supernatural, like ghosts. Consider a paranormal investigator who says that there is a true ghost story. But here’s the catch – eyewitness accounts are the only evidence they’re using to support their claim. That means people who say they saw something unusual or scary. The problem with relying solely on eyewitness accounts is that sometimes, people can be mistaken or see things differently depending on their perspective.
5. Social Media Brand Promotions
A social media influencer claims that a particular brand is the best, citing only their own positive experience and ignoring any other factors that might affect a person’s opinion.
Social media influencers have a lot of followers who trust their opinions and recommendations.
From time to time, the influencers may claim that one particular brand is the best, but they only base their opinion on their positive experience with the product. They’re not considering other factors affecting someone else’s opinion of the same product. For example, another person may have had a negative experience or found something else they liked better.
6. Political Claims
A politician may claim that crime rates have decreased in their district but only looks at statistics from one month, ignoring the rest of the year.
Politicians frequently make claims that lack substantiation or empirical support. For instance, a politician may claim that that crime in their district has decreased over the past year by only looking at statistics from one month.
However, obtaining an accurate understanding necessitates analyzing data beyond a single month. An isolated decrease in crime could stem from an anomaly or specific event in that period. Other influential factors impacting crime rates throughout the year must be considered.
Such claims rely solely on data from one month, neglecting a comprehensive examination across different periods throughout the year
7. Scientific Finding Claims
A scientist claims a particular theory is correct, citing only the experiments supporting their hypothesis and ignoring any conflicting evidence.
Let’s say a scientist has put forth a theory they believe to be true. However, the scientist only uses evidence from experiments that support their idea and disregards any evidence that contradicts it.
This means they are not considering all the available information before making their claim.
It’s like if you were trying to decide what your favorite food was but only considered the times you enjoyed it and ignored any times you didn’t like it—you wouldn’t completely understand whether or not it truly is your favorite food.
8. Animal Cruelty Debates
An animal rights activist claims that all animal testing is cruel, citing only the most extreme cases and ignoring the many instances where animal testing has helped save lives.
An animal rights activist believes that all forms of animal testing are cruel and should be stopped. They often highlight the most extreme cases of animal cruelty in laboratories, but they ignore the many instances where animal testing has helped save lives.
For example, many life-saving drugs and medical treatments have been developed through years of research using animals like mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys. These tests help scientists understand how new drugs might work in humans and identify any potential side effects. Also, scientists must follow strict guidelines when conducting experiments on animals to ensure their safety and well-being.
Other related fallacies:
Conclusion
In our quest to comprehend the world, we often seek patterns, but the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy reminds us that not all patterns are meaningful. Random occurrences can deceive us into seeing false connections.
Falling into this fallacy risks misleading conclusions and decisions. Recognizing and sidestepping this fallacy is crucial to making sound judgments based on valid reasoning, steering us away from flawed logic and guiding us toward more accurate assessments of information and events
