Cherry-picking and "influence and truth are not identical"

My objection is important.

Evidence can be cherry-picked.

That is one reason scholars do not simply ask:

Is there evidence?

They also ask:

Is all relevant evidence being considered?

Example:

Suppose ten studies exist.

Eight show no effect.

Two show an effect.

A researcher cites only the two favorable studies.

That would be cherry-picking.

So when I said:

Influence and truth are not identical,

I meant:

A conclusion can be:

influenced and correct,

influenced and incorrect,

uninfluenced and correct,

uninfluenced and incorrect.

Influence alone does not determine truth.

Evidence must still be examined.