Informal Fallacy: Suppressed Evidence
The Suppressed Evidence fallacy, also known as the fallacy of suppressed evidence, cherry-picking, or Furtive fallacy, involves emphasizing certain aspects or evidence while hiding others to support a particular conclusion as well as significant outcomes are attributed to clandestine or deceptive actions, often involving a conspiracy or hidden misconduct by decision-makers. Also, if a researcher were to selectively report only the data that supports their hypothesis while disregarding data that contradicts it, they would be committing the Suppressed Evidence Fallacy. This fallacy can be particularly detrimental in fields that rely heavily on empirical evidence and objective analysis.
- Examples:
- In economics, when evaluating the impact of a new tax policy, one might only highlight the positive effects on government revenue while ignoring the negative outcomes such as reduced consumer spending or business investment.
- The selective presentation of economic data to argue for a specific trade policy, disregarding the broader implications it may have on international relations or domestic industries.
- When an analyst claims that a market downturn was solely the result of secret manipulations by a few individuals, ignoring broader economic trends or policies that could have contributed.
- Blaming a recession on a group of investors' covert actions without acknowledging the impact of regulatory changes or macroeconomic shifts would be an example of the Furtive Fallacy. It's a fallacy of emphasis that overlooks more plausible, overt explanations in favor of secret ones.
- When a government presents the success of an economic policy, it may only showcase regions where the policy worked well, ignoring areas where it failed. This selective presentation can mislead stakeholders about the policy's overall effectiveness.
- In economics, it could be seen in the selective citation of economic indicators to support a particular policy,
- When a company reports financial growth by highlighting profits but not mentioning unsustainable practices that could jeopardize future stability.
- In the context of labor economics, one might argue that immigration negatively impacts local employment by only citing short-term job displacement, while omitting long-term benefits such as capital investment in housing, increase in purchases and job creation through new businesses established by immigrants.
- In physiology, this could manifest as disregarding certain biological responses in a study to favor a hypothesis.
- In medicine, it might involve ignoring side effects of a treatment to present it as an optimal solution.
- Dentistry is not immune either; for instance, studies might suppress evidence of complications from a dental procedure to maintain its perceived success rate.
- Pharmacy could see this fallacy in the selective presentation of clinical trial results to support the efficacy of a new drug,
- Astronomy might witness it in the exclusion of anomalous celestial data that doesn't fit a proposed model.
- Genetics research could fall prey to this by sidelining genetic variations that contradict a desired lineage theory.
- Neurology might see this fallacy in overlooking neurological variations that challenge the efficacy of a brain intervention technique.
- Politics might involve ignoring key demographic data to push a certain political agenda.
These examples underscore the importance of a comprehensive analysis to avoid misleading conclusions that stem from the Suppressed Evidence fallacy as well as to avoid falling into the trap of the furtive fallacy.
Conclusion:
Furtive fallacy undermines the integrity of arguments across disciplines by skewing the information landscape, thus leading to potentially erroneous conclusions. It's crucial for professionals and researchers to present all relevant data to ensure a comprehensive understanding and avoid misleading stakeholders.
Points to Ponder:
In order to avoid furtive fallacy all factors should be considered.
Comments
Post a Comment