Interbane wrote:1) These are scatter plots of 50 shots and 200 shots at a 20 x 20 foot area.
The problem is that since they are random, you might get a grouping or two, but the other non-member strikes are there calling attention to your lack of marksmanship ability.
Correct. Thus when you call attention to a particular grouping, you are potentially committing the TSF. You are pointing out why it is a valid fallacy. Do you realize that? All you have to do to see through the fallacious thinking is consider all the non-member dots. However, the example you chose here is more related to clustering illusion than to the way in which you committed the TSF.
Is there a difference? I used Excel to generate two sets of random numbers between 0 and 20. One set was for the x axis and one set for the y axis. I then did charts for 50 sets and 200 sets and plotted them. I believe that models the TSF exactly. Perhaps even better than the internet posting as it doesn't say that the 'sharpshooter' is blindfolded when he shoots. He should be to preserve the randomness of the shots shouldn't he. Otherwise he is going to start aiming at hit points and the process will no longer be random.
Anyway, I disagree with your criticism. I understand that was the point the creator was trying to get at but his/her logic fails. Go back to the title of the Fallacy. The 'Texas Sharpshooter'. Say you are driving down the road and see a sign which says: Stop and see the Texas Sharpshooter. You do and he shows you the barn, one of the scatter plots I included. The scatter plot is not going to fool anyone, least of all the sharpshooter/researcher. I think it is a poorly named and conceived fallacy.
Stahrwe wrote:quote2) The application I saw of the TSF was for epidemiology. Certainly one would be more interested and accepting of groupings in those cases as the consequences of rejecting a potential pattern are greater than mistaking a pattern.
interbane wrote:Correct. The nuances of any given example would help us determine if the researchers were committing a fallacy or not. It would depend on the experiment the epidemiologists are running. As long as they have good specificity and sensitivity, they can accurately examine the data without committing the TSF. Distinguishing between
Type I and Type II errors would be critical for them.
I steered clear of the terminology because I didn't want to have to explain what they mean but for anyone who doesn't know generally researchers try to frame their hypothesis so that a mistake does the least damage. For example, you would rather tell someone they had cancer when they didn't than tell them they didn't when they did.
interbane wrote:The error you make in drawing a parallel between 'the inevitable' and your passage is that you assigned meaning to the inevitable based on the passage. You made the claim that the sequence of events which has lead up to the inevitable happening thus supports your passage. This is illogical and commits the TSF. For almost any event that happens, you could pick an ambiguous passage at will and use that as the 'bullseye' around current events. It is the same illogic used by people attempting to show that Nostradamus was a prophet. Although most times the fallacy is committed it has more to do with statistics, such as winning the lottery or playing cards or creationist arguments for abiogenesis, the fallacy applies conceptually as well. Another related fallacy is cum hoc ergo propter hoc, false cause. Although a prophecy can't exactly be seen as a cause but rather a prediction, so the TSF is more fitting.
I must disagree again. The discussion is that it is inevitable that humans will abandon Christianity. Throughout the history of the church it has been anticipated that prior to return of Jesus, there would be a turning away, a great apostacy, in fact, a universal religion would replace Christianity. The fact that it is prophecied is the context in which I agreed that it is inevitable. If my comment was an example of TSF or any other fallacy, how would one introduce the association of a prophecy with either current or anticipate events. I agree that one must not see fulfilment under every 'rock' but I was discussing it as a concept and in that context I don't see it as any different than a scientist saying that one day the Sun will explode.