Suppressed Evidence Fallacy

Overview

The suppressed evidence fallacy, also known as cherry-picking or ignoring the counter-evidence, is an informal fallacy. It occurs when an arguer deliberately omits relevant information that would weaken or refute their position, thereby creating a misleading impression.

Key Concepts

This fallacy relies on presenting only favorable data while ignoring unfavorable data. The omitted evidence is often crucial to forming a balanced and accurate judgment. It’s a tactic used to make a weak argument appear stronger.

Deep Dive

When someone employs suppressed evidence, they are not necessarily lying outright but are manipulating the perception of truth by controlling the information presented. The audience is led to believe that the presented facts are comprehensive when they are not.

Applications

This fallacy is common in:

• Political rhetoric: Highlighting only positive aspects of a policy.
• Advertising: Showcasing benefits while hiding drawbacks.
• Debates: Selectively presenting statistics to support a claim.

Challenges & Misconceptions

A common misconception is that simply presenting evidence implies its completeness. However, the intent to deceive by omission is central to this fallacy. It’s distinct from genuinely overlooking evidence due to ignorance.

FAQs

What is the difference between suppressed evidence and selective evidence?

While similar, suppressed evidence implies a deliberate act of hiding information, whereas selective evidence can sometimes be unintentional oversight, though often it’s a deliberate choice too.

How can I identify suppressed evidence?

Be critical of arguments that seem too good to be true. Ask for all relevant data and consider what information might be missing.