Logical Fallacies: Changing the Subject

            True to form, most of the examples I plan to use here will be from the right, but I plan to start out with one very prominent example from one very prominent figure on the left.  Observe:

1:14:03-1:14:55

            Did you see that?  One second, the subject is the poverty in Canada, the next, it’s the unemployment rate.  The subject changed.  This is Michael Moore, either mistakenly assuming that the one counts as an accurate reflection of the other, or counting on his audience to make this mistaken assumption.  Now I will be the first to admit that my understanding of economics, while probably better than the next guy’s, has its limits, but I understand perfectly well that, depending on the breadth and quality of a country’s social programs as well as several other economic or socio-political factors, being employed does not necessarily mean living above the poverty line, and living above the poverty line does not necessarily mean being employed.  A country’s poverty rate and its unemployment rate can have very little to do with one another.

            According to my own admittedly cursory research, the homeless rates of the two countries are comparable, percentage wise, so I rather suspect that the poverty rates are comparable as well, but if this scene, which I’m about to play, is any indication, then being impoverished in Canada is not such a big deal.

1:20:00-1:20:42

            So in Canada, being poor does not necessarily mean being indigent.  Canada is a country in which being poor is not so bad.  It’s not luxurious by any means.  You’re not exactly loving life, but it’s not hopeless, desperate, or squalid.

            Now the documentary I got this footage from is called “Bowling for Columbine,” and I recommend it, especially for conservatives.  A lot of conservatives have probably dismissed it out of hand thinking they already know the case it tries to make; that guns are bad, and that gun restrictions are necessarily good.  But in fact, Moore himself is a card-carrying member of the NRA and emphasizes quite clearly that gun restrictions in Canada are not significantly different from those in the US.

01:14:54-01:16:50

            So although the rate of gun-related crime in Canada is significantly lower than in the US even after you account for the differences in our populations, Moore does not attribute this to tighter gun restrictions.  In fact, in the course of the film, he presents a much more subtle cause.  Clearly, the reason Canadians are not shooting each other nearly as much as we are is that it’s so frickin’ cold up there.  You see, you can’t shoot someone if you can’t aim, you can’t aim if you can’t hold the gun steady, and you can’t hold the gun steady if you can’t stop shivering.

            No, actually, he attributes it mostly to the atmosphere of fear fostered and maintained by the media in the US, but not the media in Canada.  He also attributes it to differences in social programs, but due to this change of the subject, this documentary de-emphasizes the differences in the way the two countries treat their poor, and in my humble opinion, this does a little too much of a disservices to this particular factor.

            This is an example of a logical fallacy called “changing the subject.”  I have a problem with what is usually given this title on the sites I can find about logical fallacies.  I find it tends to be referred to as just another word for “red herring,” when it seems to me that this is more accurately a specific form of red herring; an especially subtle form.  Observe:

            “Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural.”

            “How can it be unnatural?  It’s found all through nature.  Every animal species we have ever studied with two distinctly different genders has had the occasional exhibition of homosexuality.”

            “Well you know what else is found all through nature?  Pedophilia.  So that’s a bad argument.”

            “Hold the phone.  Let me see if I understand here.  You are not, in fact, saying that homosexuality is unnatural, even though a moment ago, you were?  Are you saying that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural, or in spite of the fact that it is natural?  Could you make up your mind?”

            Do I find the sexual assault of a child (not the same thing as pedophilia, by the way) every bit as offensive as the next guy?  Absolutely.  Does this have anything whatsoever to do with whether it is natural?  Not in the slightest.  But what else is found all through nature?  Heterosexuality.  So if homosexuality and heterosexuality are each found all through nature, then this cannot be used as a basis for declaring one of these wrong.  Why does the “wrong” label apply in the one case but not in the other?

            We’ve got two lists here: the list of things that are offensive because they are allegedly unnatural and the list of things that are offensive in spite of the fact that they are natural.  One moment, the subject is the first of these lists.  The next moment, it’s the second.

            But I’ll tell you what’s unnatural.  Homophobia.  Humanity is the only animal species we have ever studied in which a member of the species can expect to be seen as some kind of threat just for being gay.  This is not found anywhere else in nature.  If anything can, indeed, be called unnatural, surely this can be.

            Next example:

            “If the workers at a factory decide they want to strike until they can get better wages, hours, working conditions and benefits for themselves, who is the Government to step in and tell them they can’t?”

            “Well now, it seems to me that walking off the job means not getting paid.  Isn’t that a bad idea?”

            “You are changing the subject.”

            “No I’m not.”

            “The subject is whether striking should be a right; not whether it’s a good idea.  Whether striking is a good idea depends on the circumstances, but the issue is who gets to assess those circumstances and make that determination.  I say the employees get to, you say that no one gets to.  That’s the subject.  Make the case one way or the other or admit that you are changing the subject.  We don’t use ‘it might not be a good idea’ as a reason to make something illegal, because by that logic, everything becomes illegal.  Do you really want the government to be able to make something illegal just on the grounds that it might not be a good idea?  Do you really want the government to have that kind of authority?”

            Next example:

            (subject: abortion rights) “I am pro-choice.”

            (subject: abortion) “How can you condone infanticide?”

            (subject: abortion rights) “…I don’t.  I support choice and body-autonomy.  I support the woman’s right to decide for herself whether to terminate her pregnancy.”

            (subject: abortion) “Don’t you realize, if your mother had practiced your ethic, you would not be here today?”

            (subject: abortion rights) “My ethic that a woman should be free to choose?  She did practice this ethic.  She made her choice and here I am.  I am a choice.  I’m not talking about abortion; I’m talking about abortion rights.  The rights.  Get on the subject.”

            (subject: abortion) “But if the woman’s not at a point where she can afford to support a child, she could just put it up for adoption.  You know, there are many loving parents waiting for the chance to adopt.”

            (subject: abortion rights) “That is a reason for her to make the choice a certain way, not a reason to take the choice away from her.”

            (subject: abortion) “But if she can’t support a child, she could just leave it at the door of a firehouse in complete anonymity.  The firefighters will take it in and turn it over to an adoption agency.”

            (subject: abortion rights) “Which is another reason for her to make the choice a certain way, not a reason to take the choice away from her.”

            (subject: abortion) “But any given pregnancy has incredible potential.  By terminating her pregnancy, she could be denying humanity the next Steve Jobs.”

            (subject: abortion rights) “Well now, be that as it may, that is, at most, yet another reason for the woman to choose not to have an abortion; not a reason to take the choice away from her.  Do you see the pattern, yet?  Why do you insist on offering arguments against the act as arguments against the right?  Don’t you believe in individual rights?  What happens to all your high-fallutin’ rhetoric about the dangers of big government when it comes to laws that presume to dictate to a woman what she is and is not allowed to do with her own frickin’ internal organs?  If this does not constitute big government, what the hell does?”

            Sarah Palin and her daughter, go on national news after the birth of her grandson to say that they are glad they chose life.  I have to wonder how many people realize that they would not have been able to choose life if they had not had the choice to make.  No one in this debate can be pro-life because no one in this debate is anti­-life.  Whether a woman should abort her pregnancy is one subject; whether the decision should be left up to her is another.  Clearly, “pro-life” is a euphemism for “anti-choice.”  By coming to the table with a “pro-life” label and a “pro-life” platform, the anti-choicers seek to change the subject, and so maneuver the pro-choicers into defending a position we don’t actually hold.

            Same problem with calling themselves “anti-abortion.”  This is a thinly veiled effort to maneuver us into defending a “pro-abortion” position, as if the case we are making is that a woman who discovers that she is pregnant should get an abortion.  “Pro-abortion” is one position; “pro-choice” is another.  “Anti-abortion” and “pro-life” are both codewords for “anti-choice.”

            Careful.  It’s a trap.  In the comments on one of these videos, I don’t remember which, I encountered someone identifying himself (or herself, I don’t know) as “pro-gay.”  I explained that, no, you are pro-gay-rights.  You are not making the case that people should be gay, but that people should be free to be open about it if they are.

            “Now look.  Higher taxes on the wealthy do not create jobs.”

            “That would be a valid point if someone here were proposing higher taxes on the wealthy to create jobs, but as far as I know, no one is.  The argument is for higher taxes on the wealthy as part of a plan to balance the budget.”

            Now this is something that irritates the crap out of me regarding conservative hypocrisy.  I remember just a few short years ago leading up to the invasion of Iraq.  Conservative pundits switched back and forth constantly, frantically, between the act of supporting the invasion and the act of supporting our troops, making it look as if the two are the same.  Every figure in this country who dared to express any opposition to the invasion of Iraq was maligned for allegedly “hating those who defend our country.”

            Now I’m sorry to say that I supported the war myself at first.  I was taken in by all the malarky about WMDs, proliferating democracy and being welcomed as liberators.  I believed then, and I still believe that the rights and freedoms which, in my country, are outlined in the Bill of Rights are inalienable human rights, and the entitlement of every man, woman, and child, and I honestly believed that delivering these rights to the people of Iraq was what the toppling of Hussein was about, but even then, I understood the difference between supporting a war and supporting our troops.

            But to make matters worse, it was on Dubya’s watch that that whole imbroglio at Walter Reid happened.  What business does a political party that lets a thing like that happen on their watch have criticizing anyone else for being allegedly unpatriotic?

            Patriotism means supporting or troops, but patriotism for a democratic nation means loyalty to the principles of democracy, which means recognizing that war is sometimes justified and sometimes not and that the act of pointing that out does not make someone a traitor.  Supporting our troops means taking care of our troops, especially our veterans, especially our disabled veterans, especially our permanently disabled veterans, especially the veterans who became permanently disabled in service to this country.  People who cannot be bothered to see to that don’t have any business lecturing anyone about patriotism.

            Pressing the patriotism button to get what you want, changing subjects back and forth between talking about support for the war and support for our troops to create the impression that they are the same thing and that there is no way to support one without also supporting the other while letting veteran support programs go to shit is hypocritical and absolutely fallacious.

            But of course, programs to take care of our veterans require money which requires a balanced budget, and how can we keep a balanced budget when we are giving tax cuts to the people who need them the absolute least?  People who profit from war, if they sincerely care about this country, should have no objection to paying higher taxes in order to generate the necessary funds to take care of our troops and our veterans.  If we truly are the wealthiest country in the world, we should be able to afford that.

            I’ve digressed, but I believe I’ve made this one as clear as I can reasonably expect to.

Logical Fallacies: Biased Language

            Opinions are important, of course, but the act of mistaking opinion for fact is recipe for hazard, and so deliberate effort to encourage others to make this mistake is especially dishonest.  I don't know for certain if this is an official fallacy, but I have been encountering it so often that I figure, surely, it must be, and if so, it's probably the fallacy of opinionated language, or perhaps, biased language.  Consider, if you were to see three people, one exhibiting firm behavior, one exhibiting obstinate behavior and one exhibiting pigheaded behavior, how would you tell which is which?

            It cannot be done, because these three terms all describe exactly the same behavior.  The only difference between these terms is the opinion of the person using them.  "Firm" conveys approval, "pigheaded" conveys disapproval and "obstinate" is neutral.

            A fair question would be "Do you object to said party's obstinate behavior?"  An unfair, quite loaded question would, instead, be "Don't you have a problem with someone being so pigheaded?"  This is a loaded question because it relies on an unwarranted assumption: that the person being asked would, indeed, characterize the behavior in question as "pigheaded."  The act of asking, "Don't you object to pigheaded behavior?" is the same as asking, "Don't you object to obstinate behavior that you object to?"  Of course I object to pigheaded behavior, or I would not call it "pigheaded," but by asking me to describe it as such, you are not asking me to venture an opinion, but to adopt one.  How do you figure that the kind of behavior you regard as pigheaded I will regard the same way?  Why do you assume that I will disapprove of the same thing you disapprove of?  The act of saying "I object to pigheaded behavior" is redundant, and so the question, “Don’t you object to such pigheaded behavior?” is a trap.

            “Don’t you object to such pigheaded behavior?”

            “Um… no.”

            “Oh.  So you admit, then, that it is pigheaded?”

            See?  It’s a trap.

            It's not quite the same as Weasel Words, the objective of which is to confuse and obfuscate with vague language.  Deliberately vague language is one thing.  Biased language is quite another.  A given argument can be an example of both, but they are, nonetheless, not the same.

            If you see two people, one being childish and the other exhibiting child-like behavior, how do you tell which one is which?

            Do you want people to favor the continuation of a certain practice just because it has been going on a long time?  Call it "time honored" and so commit an appeal to tradition.  Do you want people to adopt a certain practice and/or program just because it has not been going on a long time?  Call it “revolutionary,” and so commit an appeal to novelty.

            Do you want the general public to oppose a certain program that requires government funding just because you and/or your sponsors would profit more without it?  Call it "wasteful," or "reckless" and be sure to withhold any other details about why you call it that, lest you end up aiding the efforts of the general public to decide for ourselves.  Our assessment might disagree with yours, after all.

            Do you want people to accept your religion's shpiel uncritically?  Call it a "message of love" or a "religion of peace," in spite of the fact that, in any case, you are, in fact, talking about unquestioning, dogmatic acceptance.

            Personally, I'm wondering where to find the "religion that lends itself to skeptical scrutiny and holds up under it."

            Do you want people to accept your religion's mandates unquestioningly?  Call them "teachings" and cherrypick the less objectionable ones until you have people in the habit of accepting them, then bring out the more authoritarian ones.

            Do you object to being asked a certain question?  Call it "gay."

            Do you want people to just accept certain restrictions on their behavior?  Call the list of restrictions a "moral code" or a source of "moral guidance."  Call the failure to accept them "libertine," "immoral," or "depraved," and call the impetus to carry out the behavior in question a "lustful appetite."

            Did something highly improbable happen that you are really glad about?  Call it "a miracle."

            Do you want people to relax their scrutiny when it comes to your shpiel?  Call them "close minded" until they do.

            Don't like a certain set of government regulations because they inhibit the unrelenting profit of you and/or your sponsors?  Call them "big government."

            Do you want society to accept restrictions on homosexual rights?  Call them "accountability."

            Do you want society to oppose a congressional effort to enforce federal regulations the violation of which led to the explosion of an oil rig, the deaths of several workers and millions of marine animals and plants and the ruination of dozens of coastal, local economies?  Call the effort "a shakedown."

            Do you object to paying taxes?  Call it “stealing” or “punishing success.”

            Don't feel like brooking disagreement?  Call it "dividing the house with petty infighting."

            Do you want local business owners to furnish your organization with regular kickbacks lest their failure to do so compel you to send your thugs to rough 'em up and break some of their stuff?  Call the kickbacks "protection money."

            Don't like labor unions?  Call them "big labor."  Call their members "union thugs."  Call their leaders "union bosses."

            "Yeah.  See?  Those 'big government' thugs nabbed Capone."

            You probably get the idea.

Logical Fallacies: Correlation/Causation

The act of understanding this fallacy depends on understanding the concept of correlation, so first I have to take some time to explain that.  Variable A and variable B are two numbers or characteristics that can be varied.  If changes in one coincide with changes in the other a high percentage of the time, this establishes a correlation.  If increases or decreases in one coincide with the same in the other, this is a positive correlation.  If, on the other hand, each coincides with the opposite in the other, this is a negative correlation.

            On the Earth’s surface, the further one is from the equator, the lower the temperature.  Therefore, distance from the equator and temperature are negatively correlated.  The higher the education level of the people surveyed, given a proper sample, the smaller the religious percentage of that group of people.  Therefore, education level and religiosity are also negatively correlated.

            Education level and unemployment rate are also negatively correlated, while education level and median income are positively correlated.

            With any given planet or moon, the more mass it has, the heavier a given object will be on its surface.  Thus, mass and gravitation are positively correlated.  Planets and moons with more mass and thus more gravitation tend to be more spherical, because their greater gravitation limits just how far geological structures can protrude before being pulled back in by the force of their own weight.  Mars, having less gravitation than the Earth, has structures protruding further.  Its mountains are significantly higher and its valleys are significantly deeper.  So on the surface of a planet (or at least a rock planet), gravitation and average mountain height are negatively correlated.

            The correlation is positive, though, when it comes to gravitation and atmosphere thickness.  Mars, having much less gravitation than the Earth, has a thinner atmosphere.  In fact, its atmosphere is so much thinner and its mountains extend so much higher that the peak of its highest mountain, Pavonis Mons, actually extends just above its atmosphere the way an island extends just above the surface of a body of water.  Indeed, I often wonder if that might be a good spot to land a rover.  But I digress.

            Positive correlations:

            The higher A, the higher B.  The lower A, the lower B.

            Where A is, B usually is as well, and where A is not, B usually is not either.  Presence of A tends to coincide with presence of B and absence of A tends to coincide with absence of B.

            Negative correlations:

            The higher A, the lower B.  The lower A, the higher B.

            Where A is, B usually is not, and vice versa.

            But observe that, so far, I have yet to utter a single word about causation, and there’s a reason for that.  You see, when a correlation has been identified between A and B, there are three possible explanations for it.  It could be that the changes in A are causing the changes in B, it could be that the changes in B are causing the changes in A, or it could be that the changes in both are being caused by something else entirely; an extraneous variable; that is, a variable that the study in question just did not happen to account for.

            Statistically speaking, one in fifteen women is going to attempt suicide at one time or another.  If, on the other hand, we narrow the sample specifically to women who have gotten breast implants, it becomes one in five.  Women with breast implants are three times as likely to attempt suicide.  That is a positive correlation.

            One way to interpret this is to suggest that the change in variable A causes the change in variable B; that somehow, the act of getting the implants makes these women more likely to contemplate suicide, but personally, I find it more plausible to suggest an extraneous variable.  I find it more likely that each change is being caused by another factor that the study in question just did not happen to account for; an extraneous variable.  The factor I suspect is low self esteem.  I find it much more likely that low self esteem compels women both to get implants and to contemplate suicide.  The woman comes under the impression that this particular surgical augmentation is going to make her feel better about herself, and for a little while, it does.  Then her spirits drop right back to where they were before.  This drastic act did not have lasting benefits because it focused on the symptom, not the underlying problem, but again, I digress.

            Now this is a problem I had with Thunderf00t shortly before I unsubbed from him.  In one video, I don’t remember which, he pointed out (assuming that this is true) that a disproportionately small percentage of the world’s scientific breakthroughs come from the parts of the world in which Islam is the predominant religion.  He tried to use this to argue that there is something about Islam particularly intrinsically antithetical to scientific progress; more so than other forms of dogmatism.  I don’t remember who, but someone called him on that in the comments, explaining that correlation does not establish causation.

            Tf00t responded by pointing out how absurd it is to suggest that the higher rate of cancer among smokers is not caused by tobacco use.

            I then called him on the strawman.  What this guy said is not that correlation negates causation, but that if fails to establish it.  Do we know about the causal connection between tobacco use and cancer?  Of course.  Do we know about it just from the correlation?  No.

            Remember, when a correlation has been observed between variable A and variable B, there are three possible explanations: the changes in A could be causing the changes in B, the changes in B could be causing the changes in A, or the changes in both could be caused by something else entirely; an extraneous variable.

            Now given the previous comprehension of science Tf00t had exhibited, and given the fact that, in any field of science, this much is covered in the first semester, he does not really have any excuse for not understanding this.

            Consider that most of the people in the world for whom rice is a staple food have dark hair.  Does this mean that looking in the mirror and seeing straight, dark hair somehow makes one more likely to want rice?  Does this mean that there is something in rice that turns one’s hair dark?  I suppose these are both possibilities, but I, for one, don’t find either especially likely.  No, much more likely, it’s because people for whom rice is a staple food are usually from the orient, where dark hair is the norm.  The extraneous variable is the state of being from the orient.

            When tobacco companies were confronted with this correlation between tobacco use and the occurrence of cancer, they insisted that it was probably just because the sort of person who was already more likely to develop cancer was also more likely to take up tobacco use.  In other words, they insisted on an extraneous variable.

            So what is the scientific response to a correlation?  To test these different possibilities.  If one sets up a controlled experiment that enables one to manipulate A and observe B, and the changes one makes to A coincide with the very changes in B that the correlation suggests, then this demonstrates that A causes B.  If they don’t, then this possible explanation is ruled out.  One then needs to set up an experiment that enables one to manipulate B and observe A.  If this produces the predicted changes, then this explanation is proven, but otherwise, this possible explanation is also ruled out, and the only explanation remaining is the extraneous variable.

            In response to this claim by the tobacco companies, the scientific community took a collection of mice and sorted them randomly into two groups; an experimental group and a control group.  Let me emphasize that.  They had to be very careful to sort them randomly to ensure the accuracy of the test results.  Then they kept the two groups of mice living under environmental conditions that were as close to identical as they could get them, to make sure that any subsequent changes could not be attributed to any other environmental differences.  Then they gave the mice in the experimental group regular exposure to tobacco but not those in the control group, and monitored both.  The tobacco exposure had to be the only significant difference between the two environments.

            I don’t remember whether it was just a few months, or a few years, but over this time, only the mice in the experimental group (the ones who had been exposed to tobacco) developed cancer.  This was the proverbial smoking gun (no pun intended).  Here was the irrefutable proof.  Confronted with this, the tobacco companies could only respond by doing everything in their power to persuade the general public to either overlook these test results, or deliberately ignore them.

            Correlation is only one ingredient in establishing causation.  True, it is an essential ingredient, but far from the only one.  To get from correlation to causation, testing at least two of the three possibilities is necessary.  Ideally, this is done with a controlled experiment, but sometimes, such is prevented by practical or ethical limitations.  In this case, all one can do is ask oneself, in each case, “What evidence should exist if this is true?  What evidence should exist if it isn’t?” or more concisely, “How is it verifiable if true?  How is it falsifiable if false?” and then look for evidence from both lists.

            Now be careful here.  You have to have answers for both (and the more, the better) before you begin your investigation or you are in danger of confirmation bias and nonfalsifiability which are both fallacies I explain earlier in the playlist.

Logical Fallacies: Cherrypicking

            I used to make videos about logical fallacies, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

            A while ago, I made a cursory study of economics, and in this, there were a few books I found quite helpful; among them, Economic Literacy by Jacob De Rooy, Economics for Dummies by Sean Masaki Flynn, and The Undercover Economist by William J. Harford.  I found them helpful because of the pattern they followed.

            "Here we have term A, here's what it means, and here's what it amounts to.  Here we have term B, here's what it means, and here's what it amounts to.  Here we have term C, here's what it means, and here's what it amounts to.  Now let's look at how concept A, concept B, and concept C relate to one another."

            Other books on the subject I found not so helpful.  Basic Economics and Applied Economics, both by Thomas Sowell.  These followed a different pattern.

            "Here we have an instance in which increased government regulation was followed by bad events.  Here we have an instance in which decreased government regulation was followed by good events.  Here we have another instance in which increased government regulation was followed by bad events.  Here we have another instance in which decreased government regulation was followed by good events."

            Clearly, this fellow is trying to support (without actually making) the claim that more regulation is intrinsically a bad thing and less regulation is intrinsically a good thing, without exception.  First, in omitting any of the downsides of the instances in question, he is counting on us to assume that there were none.  Second, in carefully selecting the instances he relates (his anecdotes), he is trying to support this conclusion—this correlation—with purely anecdotal evidence.  These two problems we run into even if we assume that each of these anecdotes are related accurately which could be a pretty big assumption to make.

            Consider a popular practice at white supremacist rallies.  A presentation is made, and it begins with various slides and anecdotes of someone who just happens to be black and just happens to have a history of violent, gruesome crime; the more gruesome, the better.  This continues for twenty minutes and then it switches to a litany of slides and anecdotes of another such person who also happens to be black and to have a history of violent, especially heinous crime.  This practice continues for three straight hours, switching to a different person every twenty minutes.  Interestingly enough, each person they talk about just happens to share these two characteristics; being black and having a history of violent, horrifying crime.

            The accounts of violence disgust and horrify the audience, and since each person they are shown while in this state of disgust and horror just happens to be black, they learn to associate the two characteristics.  After this, seeing someone ethnically African will have a tendency to bring them back to this state, as per Classical Conditioning, especially if such is not an everyday occurrence.

            The idea in this case is to get the audience to accept that, since such is the case in 100% of the cases presented, such is the case 100% of the time.  Instances of this can usually be identified when someone hates a certain party with a passion and can’t explain why.  The reason they hate this party is not because the party in question has necessarily done anything wrong but because they have been trained to associate this party with all manner of horrifying things and so experience horror every time this party comes up.  Of course, they tend to have trouble understanding why others don’t experience the same horror.

            Ann Coulter once made a presentation in which she listed one terrorist attack which just happened to have been carried out by Muslims, and then another terrorist attack which just happened to have been carried out by Muslims, then another and another, and then she referred to this as a "100% correlation," counting on her audience to conclude that, since such is the case in 100% of the accounts she has related, such must be the case 100% of the time.

            Omitting one or just a few important details in a misleading manner is known as a lie by omission, but continuously, deliberately including the details that support a certain conclusion while deliberately excluding the ones that go against it, counting on your audience to assume that the details that go against it don't exist is known as cherrypicking.

            It's cherrypicking when one selects the evidence which appears to support one's conclusions while overlooking the evidence that goes against it.  It's like confirmation bias, but deliberate.  One form of cherrypicking is the act of trying to demonstrate a correlation with what is known as anecdotal evidence, so I'll take a moment to talk about that, specifically.

            I've known a few people in my day with fairly dark eyes and fairly light hair.  I've also known a few people with whom it was the other way around.  If I were to go searching, surely, I could find quite a number of such people in the world.  Would this prove that such is the norm?  Of course not, but why not?

            Because correlations are not established by cherry-picked anecdotes.  A key consideration in correlation is percentage.  What percentage of the time do the two characteristics in question go together?  If you are not keeping track of both the percentage of the time they do and the percentage of the time they don't, you are clearly not striving to answer this question, so you are not establishing correlation.

            Correlation, however, does not establish causation, but that is a subject for a different video.

Logical Fallacies: The Broad Brush

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pUrinqgFSA

           When I was in High School, one thing we made a study of was Native American history. One incident we examined, I don’t remember what it was called, entailed white settlers angry because, apparently, when harmed by a white man, the natives had a tendency to retaliate against any white man. But as the natives in the conflict in question were glad to point out, the reverse was true as well.
           Joseph Stalin was a brutal tyrant. There is some evidence to indicate that he was an atheist. Therefore, all atheists are blamed for his brutal tyranny, as if we all had a hand in it.
           A group of white supremacists demonstrates, carrying signs displaying statistics about how many times in the previous year a certain brutal crime was committed by members of a certain ethnic group. This is, of course, offered up as proof that this ethnic group is intrinsically more violent than theirs.
           Someone who happens to be gay commits a rape and when local media report the event, they emphasize his sexual orientation over and over again, as if that particular characteristic is somehow more responsible for the fact that this individual committed this crime than any of his or her other characteristics. Of course, someone responds by suggesting that this means that homosexuals in general are more likely to commit rape.
           Mexican drug cartels have a practice of covertly planting cocaine fields in sparsely-populated, seldom traveled parts of the United States near our southern border. Critics describe this as "what those Mexicans are doing now," as if all Mexicans, or even a significant portion of them are participating.
           A band of Muslims hijacks four planes, leading to the deaths of about 3000 citizens of the United States. Afterward, all Muslims are blamed, as if all the Muslims in the world had a hand in it.
           More recently, a single Muslim organization threatens the lives of the producers of an animated comedy. Yet again, all Muslims are blamed.
           A single person, or a single party, commits a certain injustice and the blame for that injustice is applied categorically to all people who share, or allegedly share, a certain characteristic with that person or party. I give you the negative side of this particular fallacy. There’s also a positive side.
           A comment taken from the correspondence of George Washington can be interpreted (without much stretching) as an endorsement of Christianity. Subsequently, Christianity is credited with winning the Revolutionary War, and subsequently, all Christians are heralded, in the name of patriotism, for practicing such a triumphant religion, as if every last one of them lead the revolution. Nevermind that the vast majority on the British side were also Christian.
           By the same token, the Mujahedeen, a Muslim organization, successfully drives the Soviet occupation out of Afghanistan. All of Islam is credited for this accomplishment, and subsequently, all Muslims pat themselves on the back for practicing such a triumphant religion.
           But in each case, it’s the same problem. How do we know, assuming it’s true, that Stalin’s tyranny is any more attributable to his lack of god beliefs than to his mustache? How do we know that the violence of the members of the ethnic group in question is due directly to their ethnic group instead of, perhaps, the best effort of members of that group to survive and cope in the niche society has shoehorned them into? How do we know that this individual’s commission of rape is due to his or her sexual orientation instead of, perhaps, Mercury being in retrograde? How do we know that the drug cartels are planting the cocaine because they are Mexican, instead of just because it is profitable? How do we know that the Muslims carried out the hijackings because they were Muslim, and not just because they had been manipulated, through their beliefs, into seeing those in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as evil? How do we know that the Muslim organization in question made the death threats just because they were a Muslim organization, and not just because that one particular organization has some trouble grasping the manner of treatment any given religion receives in the democratic world?
           How do we know that the religious beliefs of Washington had anything whatsoever to do with his victory in the Revolution? How do we know that the religion of the Mujahedeen played any part whatsoever in their victory against the Soviets?
           We don’t. None of these conclusions are supported by these bases. This is a kind of hasty generalization known as the Broad Brush.
           A certain group belonging to a certain religion applies the same label to everyone who does not practice that religion. Then two groups to whom this label can be applied, that is two groups who do not practice this religion, express differing views and the original group belonging to the religion paints this as one group contradicting itself and subsequently losing credibility instead of two distinctly different groups just expressing differing views, which in and of itself, is hardly surprising or unreasonable.
           A billionaire made his fortune by developing innovations. This segues into the practice of calling all billionaires "innovators," as if such is the only way to make or increase one's fortune.
           It happens, sometimes, that one group of scientists will rely on radiometric methods to date a layer of rock strata and use the results to suggest the age of the fossils contained therein. Young-Earth-Creationists indicate this and say that scientists determine the age of fossils based on the age of the strata.
           Other times, another group of scientists will rely on radiometric methods to determine the age of the fossils within a certain layer of rock strata and use that to suggest the age of that layer. Young-Earth-Creationists then indicate this and say that scientists determine the age of the strata based on the age of its fossils.
           "So," says the YEC, "they use the age of the rock to determine the age of the fossils and the age of the fossils to determine the age of the rock. So this whole notion of an earth that existed billions of years ago is based entirely on circular reasoning."
           This last is an example of the Strawman, the Lie by Omission and probably Quote Mining as well, but the road to it is paved with two strokes of the Broad Brush.