Anirrelevant conclusion,[1] also known asignoratio elenchi (Latin for 'ignoring refutation') ormissing the point, is theinformal fallacy of presenting anargument whose conclusion fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class ofrelevance fallacies.[2]
The irrelevant conclusion should not be confused withformal fallacy, an argument whose conclusion does not follow from itspremises; instead, it is that despite its formalconsistency it is not relevant to the subject being talked about.
Ignoratio elenchi is one of the fallacies identified byAristotle in hisOrganon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form ofignoratio elenchi.[3][4]
Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy that arises from "ignorance of the nature of refutation". To refute an assertion, Aristotle says we must prove its contradictory; the proof, consequently, of a proposition which stood in any other relation than that to the original, would be anignoratio elenchi. Since Aristotle, the scope of the fallacy has been extended to include all cases of proving the wrong point ... "I am required to prove a certain conclusion; I prove, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it; in that lies the fallacy ... For instance, instead of proving that 'this person has committed an atrocious fraud', you prove that 'this fraud he is accused of is atrocious'"; ... The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute proof of the original one… It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close relation with it.[5]
— Arthur Ernest Davies, "Fallacies" inA Text-Book of Logic
Samuel Johnson's unique "refutation" ofBishop Berkeley'simmaterialism, his claim that matter did not actually exist but only seemed to exist,[6] has been described asignoratio elenchi:[7] during a conversation withBoswell, Johnson powerfully kicked a nearby stone and proclaimed of Berkeley's theory, "I refute itthus!"[8] (See alsoargumentum ad lapidem.)
A related concept is that of thered herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.[2]Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes confused withstraw man argument.[2]
The phraseignoratio elenchi is from Latin 'an ignoring of a refutation'. Hereelenchi is thegenitive singular of the Latin nounelenchus, which is from Ancient Greek ἔλεγχος (elenchos) 'an argument of disproof or refutation'.[9] The translation in English of the Latin expression has varied somewhat.Hamblin proposed "misconception of refutation" or "ignorance of refutation" as a literal translation,[10] John Arthur Oesterle preferred "ignoring the issue", and[10]Irving Copi,Christopher Tindale and others used "irrelevant conclusion".[10][11]
| Overview | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ideas and interests |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Works |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Related topics | |||||||||||||||||||
