All logical fallacies, if you think about it, can be derived from cherry-picking, or as I prefer to say, “painting bulls-eyes round arrows,” though that is a bit verbose, so “cherry-picking” it is for this diatribe. For those who don’t already know, cherry-picking is the deliberate selection of physical evidence, data, or talking points that support a pre-determined conclusion. This is the ideological method in a nutshell.

There isn’t much of an explanation beyond what I’ve already offered, so in order to elaborate on what I’m getting at, let’s look at some examples. I’ll be tying this back in with the ideological method, so if you haven’t read that article (which I originally published 14 months before this one), please do. I listed several specific fallacies that are used to prop up flawed ideologies (I say “flawed” because there is no such thing as a “false” ideology; “pseudophilosophy” and “pseudoreligion” are not real words, and anyone who uses them is just spewing equine excrement in a vain attempt to demonstrate intellectual superiority) beginning, of course, with cherry-picking, and the next one I discussed was the double standard, which is itself a derivative of the motte-and-bailey argument. The motte-and-bailey argument, in short, is the process of flitting back-and-forth between a strong argument and a weak one when it suits the presenter. In effect, it is a sophisticated combination of a steelman and strawman, both of which are cherry-picked arguments in and of themselves, and possibly even outright misrepresentations. A steelman is the most charitable interpretation of an ideological position, whereas the strawman is the least charitable. The combination of steelman and strawman may be used in another type of fallacy: the false dilemma.

The false dilemma, of which the false dichotomy is by far the most common, is the presentation of a handful of artificially limited options, whether interpretations of a phenomenon or solutions to a problem. The presenter of the false dilemma, in the vast majority of instances, is trying to portray all but their preferred option as somehow unreasonable, in other words, steelmanning their own preference while strawmanning all others. Since the false dichotomy is so well-known as a fallacy, shrewd ideologues avoid it, and prefer either to present more than two possibilities in a feigned attempt to appear intellectually honest, or perform a bait-and-switch with a hollow steelman (or “armoured strawman,” if you will) of their opponent’s position. I find this to be especially slimey, since it is nothing more than obfuscation.

Another particularly slimey fallacy is the unfalsifiable claim. On one hand, this could be a claim so broad (much like a horoscope) that no-one could possibly hope to debunk it, hence the reason that the burden of proof rests with the person making the positive claim, and that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. On the other hand, the unfalsifiable claim may be something so obscure and specific that the likelihood of another person knowing better is infinitesimal. In either case, the claim is carefully selected so as to be bloody near impossible to argue against… or so the ideologue thinks.

Perhaps derived from the unfalsifiable claim is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning must have at least two talking points that are dependent on each other, such as the age-old “chicken and egg” question. For the record, the egg came first: eggs have been around quite a bit longer than chickens. Circular reasoning can occur only if starting with a conclusion and working backwards. Perhaps circular reasoning isn’t a derivative of cherry-picking, but instead a different result of employing the same cart-before-the-horse mentality. Perhaps rather than all logical fallacies being derived from cherry-picking, perhaps cherry-picking, unfalsifiable claims, and circular reasoning are the “big three” from which the rest are derived. Nonetheless, I can think of one other way that circular reasoning can be derived from cherry-picking, and that is what one might call “orbital reasoning,” that is two or more talking points that each supports the other(s) derived from and forever orbiting the predetermined conclusion.

Moving on to the next fallacy I mentioned in the old article, tu quoque, Latin for “you too,” is yet another derivative of another fallacy, specifically a false equivalence. A false equivalence is the comparison of two lines of reasoning by means of cherry-picking individual points common to them. False equivalences are generally used in direct opposition to false dichotomies, in order to present both sides as equally valid or equally apocryphal. I have personally observed ideologues flit back and forth between the false dichotomy and false equivalence whenever it suits their purpose.

Tu quoque is one side of a particularly fallacious coin, and the other side is projection, which is a false accusation of a person being guilty of that which only the accuser is actually guilty. Nine times out of ten, the projector is simply talking out his arse, but the fallacy of projection can also be based on cherry-picked points within a person’s argument. In my own experience, projection is usually just a lie (remember, the ideological method relies on outright falsehoods as well as fallacious reasoning), but in the cases of arguments on the topic of free speech, any restrictions on communication that free-speech proponents make are treated as “arguments for censorship” by the pro-censorship crowd. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been told been told that merely blocking someone whom you don’t want to hear from is “right-wing cancel culture,” or something like that (I argue with leftists a lot more than rightists, so I get called “far-right” a lot more than I get called a “godless communist”).

The “no true Scotsman” is a pretty obvious example of cherry-picking, because anyone making this argument is being very selective with whom they consider a “true” Scotsman. I don’t think I need to elaborate any further.

The “no true Scotsman” is frequently used to discredit the individual making the argument, and therefore is also a type of ad hominem (Latin for “to the man”), another derivative of cherry-picking, because it necessarily relies on the validity of the criticism of a person’s character extending to the person’s argument. Further derived from ad hominem is the argument from authority, which may be either positive (“I know what I’m talking about because I have credentials”) or negative (“you don’t have credentials therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about”). Bear in mind that an ad hominem fallacy is different from an ad hominem attack, as the latter is nothing more than an insult. One could also say that an ad hominem fallacy is a type of non-sequitur, Latin for “does not follow,” though I would say that it is not always true. I could write an entire diatribe on the precise reasons that the ideas of both Karl Marx and Charles Darwin were partially informed by their respective characters, and why ad hominem arguments made against Darwin by creationists are not even accurate, much less pertinent. Creationists have attempted to smear Darwin as a racist, among other things, in an attempt to undermine the Theory of Evolution, but not only is that fallacious, it’s not even true; Darwin wasn’t a racist except by the broadest, most unfalsifiable postmodernist definitions of the word. Marx, on the other hand, I cannot defend in such a fashion; he actually was a repugnant character, but I don’t need to use that as a crutch to debunk his ideas.

Speaking of the non-sequitur, I find it damn near impossible to derive this from cherry-picking, but much like the slippery slope, I’m not sure that this should be considered a fallacy. Rather, I would say that a non-sequitur is just an intellectual cop-out, and should be held as a much more contemptible argument than any logical fallacy. The slippery slope, on the other hand, is something that deserves its own article, but for now, I’ll simply say that I prefer to use the phrase “dangerous precedent,” partially because I’m not just a student of science, but also history and, perhaps more importantly, law.

Perhaps the most amusing derivative of cherry-picking, which is itself a derivative of the strawman, is reductio ad absurdum, yet another Latin phrase, but one which I’m sure I don’t need to translate. Reducing an opponent’s position to a joke is a remarkably effective debate tactic, and also requires quite a respectable amount of creativity. Of course, when an idea actually is laughable, it is common for proponents of that idea to be completely humourless. Remember, one’s sense of humour is inversely proportional to one’s sense of self-importance, and if you ever decide to ignore my advice and argue with an ideologue, do me a solid at least and use that quip against your interlocutor… then watch them discredit themself by throwing a temper tantrum. It works on Scott Heil just as well as it works on Kent Hovind. If you couldn’t gather, even though I’m denouncing reductio ad absurdum as a logical fallacy, I actually encourage people to use it and other forms of humour when arguing with ideologues, partially because it’s effective, but mostly just because it’s fun.

So, there you have it, all the various logical fallacies I can think of that are derived from cherry-picking. Did I miss any? If I did, let me know, and better yet, tell me if (and if so, how) it can be derived from cherry-picking. Furthermore, do you agree with the title premise, or do you find yourself thinking more along the lines of the “big three” that I presented when I mentioned circular reasoning?