Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation could logically be; "elenchi" (genitive singular of the Latin elenchus) is from the Greek ἔλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.[2]
Aristotle would describe ignoratio elenchi as a mistake made during a refutation of an argument. He called it "an ignorance" of what makes for a refutation. For Aristotle, ignoratio elenchi amounts to ignorance of logic. To Aristotle all logical fallacies can be reduced to ignoratio elenchi.[3]
Contents |
Similar in category, but with darker implications than ignoratio elenchi, a "red herring" is an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.
For example:
"I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this, because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."
Topic A is the proposal that academic requirements be raised. Topic B is the possible effects of a budget crisis on teacher salaries. Topic A is abandoned and the unrelated topic B is introduced.
A "red herring" is a debating tactic that seeks to divert an opponent. A digression can, similarly, be a verbal tactic of diversion, but has no place in a serious debate; and the diversion of digression may also be in play.
During a political campaign effort, President Truman referred to accusations that his administrative policies leaked information to Communist Russia as a political red herring.[4]
|
||||||||||||||
 |
The English used in this article or section may not be easy for everybody to understand. You can help Wikipedia by making this page or section simpler. |
Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is; "elenchi" is from the Greek [[Socratic method|έλεγχος]], meaning an argument of disproof or refutation.[1] (Some sources give by ignorance of the issues or even by ignoring the issues as a translation of ignoratio elenchi.)
Aristotle believed that an ignoratio elenchi is a mistake made by a questioner while attempting to falsify a respondent's argument. He called it an ignorance of what makes for a refutation. For Aristotle, ignoratio elenchi amounts to ignorance of logic. In fact, Aristotle goes so far as to say that all logical fallacies can be reduced to what he calls ignoratio elenchi.
Modern use limits this term much more narrowly to the kind of mistake described in the first paragraph above.
Contents |
Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as digression which is a neutrally connotated "Red herring".
Maher: It's arbitrary, isn't it? If you had been born in Pakistan, you wouldn't be believing in Jesus Christ. You would have been told another fairy and you would have been believing that.
Scarborough: Well, Bill, that's your opinion.
Whether Maher's argument is his opinion or not is irrelevant and does not address the argument made.
The conclusion is ignoratio elenchi, since friendliness and charity are not the main qualifications for induction into the Hall of Fame.
The existence of worse criminals is a secondary issue which has no bearing on whether the driver deserves a fine for recklessness. If the speaker were deliberately attempting to divert the issue, this would be an example of a red herring. While the argument about how the police should spend their time may have merit, the question of whom the police should prioritize pursuing and the question of what should be done with those the police have caught are separate questions.
A red herring, the unrelated alleged affair, attempts to change the subject away from the popular policies. However, if the original discussion were of the prime minister's public integrity (encompassing both popularity and conduct), this argument could be perfectly valid. Such as if a politician's election campaign revolved around family values. Then an argument about such an affair would be valid, as it is in direct conflict with a family values platform.
   | Nizkor Project: Red Herring - Fallacy: Red Herring |
| | The Art of Controversy: Diversion - Schopenhauer: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten / Kunstgriff 29 |
| | About.com: Fallacies of relevance - Fallacies of Relevance |
| | Red herring in political speech - Figures of Speech - It Figures - And Now Congress Pauses for a Word from Its Sponsor |
|
|
Wikis
Quiz
Search