The cherry picking fallacy is evident in the selective presentation of data. Examples can be found in areas such as scientific research and business:
In its annual report, a company emphasizes its achievements and obscures negative data: “This year, we expanded our customer base by 30%, making it our most successful year in terms of growth.” Although the report includes a comprehensive section on financial performance, it uses complex language and formatting that makes it less obvious that the company is also experiencing a downward trend in profit margins and an increase in operational costs.
As the example demonstrates, cherry picking is often applied to data to convey a specific narrative, aiming to validate a hypothesis or portray an organization more favorably than merited.
Continue reading: What’s an example of cherry picking data?
The appeal to novelty fallacy and the appeal to modernity fallacy are near opposites of the appeal to nature fallacy. Both contrast with the appeal to nature fallacy because they value newness for its own sake:
- Appeal to novelty fallacy: Assumes that new ideas and practices are inherently superior
- Appeal to modernity fallacy: Values modern approaches as opposed to traditional, historical, or natural approaches
Continue reading: What is the opposite of the appeal to nature fallacy?
Several fallacies could be considered similar to the appeal to nature fallacy:
- Naturalistic fallacy: Confuses what is natural with what is good, but in a strictly ethical sense
- Moralistic fallacy: Assumes that whatever is deemed moral must be natural or true
- False dilemma fallacy: Presents an oversimplified choice between two opposite extremes (e.g., “natural” and “unnatural”)
Continue reading: What fallacies are related to the appeal to nature fallacy?
A non-fallacious argument can include the idea of what is “natural” or “unnatural” along with specific, evidence-based reasons.
However, an appeal to nature fallacy claims that something is good because it’s natural, or bad because it’s unnatural, without any justification.
Continue reading: When is an appeal to nature a fallacy?
David Hume did not use the term “naturalistic fallacy.” However, Hume’s thoughts on the problem of “is” vs. “ought” (first explored in A Treatise of Human Nature) influenced later discussions on the relationship between facts and values, including critiques of the naturalistic fallacy.
Continue reading: Did Hume write about the naturalistic fallacy?
The term naturalistic fallacy was coined by British analytic philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 work Principia Ethica. Moore argued against defining moral qualities such as “goodness” on the basis of observations about nature.
Continue reading: Who coined the term naturalistic fallacy?
The is-ought problem is related to the naturalistic fallacy, but there is a key difference:
- The is-ought problem is the unjustified leap from descriptive statements (describing what “is”) to prescriptive statements (describing what “ought to be”).
- The naturalistic fallacy is a specific instance of the is-ought problem, in which descriptions of natural phenomena are used to prescribe morality.
Continue reading: What is the difference between the is-ought fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy?
The fallacy of division bears similarities to other logical fallacies that involve overgeneralization:
Continue reading: What fallacies are similar to the fallacy of division?
The fallacy of division incorrectly assumes that the properties of a whole apply to its parts.
Its counterpart is the fallacy of composition, which assumes that the properties of parts apply to the whole. These are not two forms of the same fallacy but distinct and essentially opposite errors.
The fallacy of division could also be compared to the ecological fallacy, which similarly involves making assumptions about the parts from the whole. However, the ecological fallacy applies strictly to the misuse of statistical data.
Continue reading: Are there two forms of the fallacy of division?
There are two logical fallacies that involve essentially reversing the burden of proof:
Continue reading: What is the reverse burden of proof fallacy?
