This is a point I wish more people would understand. There are logical fallacies that always make for a bad argument and logical fallacies that are reasonable

This is a point I wish more people would understand. There are logical fallacies that always make for a bad argument and logical fallacies that are reasonable but not logical proofs. For example correlation causation is one that needs to be treated with care, but correlation is often investigated further by scientists to find causation. It does not prove it exists, but it does indicate an area fruitful to research further. But the texas sharp shooter fallacy and cherry picking data does not make for a good argument nor serve as a useful indicator of where one might dig for further information.