Talk:Texas sharpshooter fallacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second example seems to be inappropriate, since walking in the storm does, in fact, increase your chances of becoming a ground for lightning. Does anyone agree that we should change it? Cluster

Sure, if you can think of a better example. Maybe "There have been three plane crashes in the last month, so I'm cancelling my flight." or "There have been three burgleries by Chinese gangs recently, so all Chinese people must be crooks." (note to the hard of thinking: the two quotes above are presented as examples of fallacy.) Zeimusu

But "There have been three plane crashes in the last month, so I'm cancelling my flight." can be perfectly reasonable logic. It does not attempt to lay blame on something unrelated, since it doesn't judge in the least. Since planes are such complex machines, it's virtually impossible to rule out a potential cause. Let's see... "I saw four cats on my way to work, but five cats on the way back; they must be multiplying." What do you think? Cluster 21:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The definition is oh so technically correct. But... was this written by a professor of legalese for mathematicians? Is it really the sort of language that's appropriate for a cooperative dictionary for the public? --Farry 15:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterexamples

I find the "counterexamples" section extremely unclear. It is extremely convoluted and unclear, to the point where I can barely discern its relevance (if any) to the rest of the article. Furthermore, what is meant by a "statistical-based facts?" Does the author mean "statistically significant relationships?" SH