The Texan Sniper Fallacy, A Very Common Fact
Before we explain what the Texan sniper fallacy is, we’ll start by explaining what fallacies are. In philosophy and, more concretely, in the field of logic, fallacies are arguments which initially seem valid but which contain a bias which completely cancels out their content.
Fallacies are mainly used in debates, discussions … Sometimes consciously, and others unconsciously. In this article, we are going to tell you about a very well-known fallacy, that of the Texas sniper.
We will thus discover its origin, what it consists of and how this phenomenon modifies the way of interpreting and selecting information in order to verify our ideas or beliefs. In addition, we will study examples to be able to better understand it and better prevent (or combat) it.
The Texan Sniper Fallacy: What is it?
The Texan sniper fallacy is very common. Some information (without initial meaning) is interpreted, disguised or manipulated until it seems to make sense or until it corresponds to our initial hypothesis.
Its name comes from the English Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Through this phenomenon, one proceeds to a reasoning which omits any clue suggesting that one of our ideas is wrong and underlines the information going in the direction of our hypothesis.
We can thus succeed in distorting reality and interpreting it as we wish. And this, by disfiguring what we have observed to bring us closer to what we claim to defend.
The origin of this phenomenon
To better understand the phenomenon of the Texan sniper fallacy, we will now talk about its origin. The name of this fallacy comes from the following story: a gunman once fired several bullets in a random fashion at a barn; then he painted a target on each of those shots to call himself a sniper.
In other words, after performing their action, the sniper took the necessary steps to make that action make sense or make sense, in order to “win” or to feel “victorious”. So he changed the data (paint a target) to confirm his hypothesis (win).
So, according to this fallacy, we modify the observed data to confirm our hypothesis (like the sniper in the story). Now let’s take a look at some examples.
Some examples
Imagine that you had a dream about number 7 and that same day you are staying at the hotel in room number 362. If we apply the Texan sniper fallacy here, we can say that you had a premonition, because 3 + 6-2 = 7, the number we dreamed of. We manipulate the data to confirm our hypothesis.
We can find this fallacy in the interpretation of the stars. We tend to draw a succession of imaginary lines to connect the stars and form figures when, in reality, their position is determined by chance. In this case, we ignore the celestial bodies which could skew the figure that we “seek”.
How do we select the information?
Through this fallacy, people can end up devaluing information that does not correspond to their ideas and manipulating or editing the information in order to convince someone (or to convince themselves) of something. Moreover, through this phenomenon, we magnify the importance of what we claim to defend.
In addition, we ignore the differences that may be in our data and we highlight the similarities. Once the reasoning in question has been carried out, we deduce a conclusion which one might consider to be false.
Illusion of series and apophenia
The phenomenon of the Texan sniper fallacy is linked, in cognitive psychology, to what we call the illusion of the series. The illusion of series is this tendency that we have to consider (or see) patterns which, in reality, do not exist.
This fallacy is also linked to another concept, apophenia. This term refers to seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless facts, a fact that is very similar to what we just explained.
It should nevertheless be emphasized that these two concepts can be interpreted from cognitive psychology and statistics, with different nuances depending on the discipline. In cognitive psychology, they are linked to the fallacy of the Texan sniper, because through the latter, we establish patterns that do not exist, in order to justify our ideas.
How do you avoid the Texas sniper fallacy?
The Texan sniper fallacy, like many others, is not always consciously used. Here are some key ideas to avoid the emergence of this fallacy:
- Look for opposing arguments: it is important not to look only for arguments that go in favor of our hypothesis.
- Avoid always wanting to be right: this will help us to demonstrate our ideas in a more objective and logical way.
With these two small actions, and being aware of the risk involved in the Texan sniper fallacy, we will be able to minimize its risk of occurrence and argue our ideas much more reliably. Nevertheless, it is possible that we do it anyway. The important thing will therefore be to know how to detect it in others!
Our thoughts Discover the scarecrow fallacy, a fallacious reasoning used in communication so as not to have to face the arguments of the …
