Structure
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy often arises when a person has a large amount of data at their disposal but only focuses on a small subset of that data. Some factor other than the one attributed may give all the elements in that subset some kind of common property (or pair of common properties, when arguing for correlation). If the person attempts to account for the likelihood of finding ''some'' subset in the large data with ''some'' common property by a factor other than its actual cause, then that person is likely committing a Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The fallacy is characterized by a lack of a specific hypothesis prior to the gathering of data, or the formulation of a hypothesis only after data have already been gathered and examined. Thus, it typically does not apply if one had an '' ex ante'', or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data. For example, one might, prior to examining the information, have in mind a specific physical mechanism implying the particular relationship. One could then use the information to give support or cast doubt on the presence of that mechanism. Alternatively, if additional information can be generated using the same process as the original information, one can use the original information to construct a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis on the new data. (See hypothesis testing.) What one ''cannot'' do is use ''the same'' information to construct ''and'' test the same hypothesis (see hypotheses suggested by the data)—to do so would be to commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.Examples
A Swedish study in 1992 tried to determine whether power lines caused some kind of poor health effects. The researchers surveyed people living within 300 meters of high-voltage power lines 25-years and looked for statistically significant increases in rates of over 800 ailments. The study found that the incidence of childhood leukemia was four times higher among those who lived closest to the power lines, and it spurred calls to action by the Swedish government. The problem with the conclusion, however, was that the number of potential ailments, i.e., over 800, was so large that it created a high probability that at least one ailment would exhibit the appearance of a statistically significant difference by chance alone, a situation known as theSee also
* * * * * * * * *Related fallacies
* * ' * 'References
External links