Talk:Irrelevant conclusion

the story of the sultan and the curly hair
A Sultan Says: "Who has curl hair must be perished." A smart guy with curl hair said to defend hiself:"Our pubic hair is a form of hair which is curl. Therefore all who have pubic hair must then also perished..."

-Can anyone check this out?

The minister's tax policy
I'm not sure of the fourth example given. True, the subjects are unrelated, but it's not necessarily a red herring to suggest that the minister's affair is more newsworthy than his tax policy. A better example might be "it may be a good policy, but how can you support the bill of a man who cheated on his wife?" Also, I worry that it might violate the NPOV policy by being a jab at the media coverage of Clinton. I'm hesitant to change it without hearing others' thoughts, though. Twin Bird 06:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"the lawyer's job is to show the client to be not guilty, not to legislate"
The statement appears to oversimplify so much as to be untrue. Part of the lawyers job is to show that the state did not meet its standard of proof, and the statement attributed to the lawyer in this example, could be an attempt at jury nullification.--Silverback 03:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Defense Lawyer
"Tax fraud is not much of a crime, and it is unfair for my client to be subjected to this lengthy and stressful trial over such a minor offense." (This is irrelevant; the lawyer's job is to show the client to be not guilty, not to legislate.)

While the claim that "tax fraud is not much of a crime" may be false, the idea that it's not the lawyer's job to challenge the fairness of a law is absolutely false. When the Supreme Court decided that laws against sodomy were illegal, it was not because the accused individuals were innocent but because the law was unconstitutional. If a law is unconstitutional, it may very well be the lawyer's job to establish that fact in a court of law.

If anything, the red herring here is the claim that challenging a law constitutes an attempt to legislate.

--204.6.208.76 02:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Examples
"When Ex- Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau legalized homosexuality and sodomy, many opponents asked why he considered these activities tolerable. He responded that "the government has no business in the bedrooms of it's people." 'This is true, because the Canadian government is in fact not in anybody's bedroom. What he fails to answer, however, is that homosexuality and sodomy are not immoral activities.'"

This isn't a very good example. While very strictly speaking it may qualify (I'm not even sure it does) it doesn't with this wording, and hardy illustrates the fallacy clearly. John.Conway 01:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

These are the current examples given of Ignoratio elenchi..Now since I'm new, I suppose I should bring this up on the talk page; From what I have gathered both on this page and off of other websites, the ignoratio elenchi means that you give an argument with a conclusion that is not relevant to the point you are trying to prove. The argument itself, in the instance of this fallacy, may be completely valid.

These examples more illustrate a faulty argument. "Because HIV can be found in the human population, it should be found in other animals as well." It looks like the premise of this one argument is

statement 1: HIV can be found in the human population

and the conclusion is

statement 2: it can therefore be found in other animals.

The actual idea behind ignoratio elenchi is that statement 1 is not a premise of an argument, but the conclusion of a hereby unseen argument, which would fail to support statement 2, which is the point it is trying to prove.

I think example 1 should look more like this:

Prima: My point is, HIV can not be found in giraffes.

Secunda: Well, recent studies have shown (insert percentage) of humanity to be suffering from HIV. The first cases of HIV have been traced back to monkeys in Africa. It is therefore clear that HIV can be found in animals.

''Secunda's conclusion does not refute prima's point at all. The conclusion 'HIV can be found in animals' does not prove that HIV can be found in giraffes, specifically. Even though his argument is valid, his conclusion does not follow the point he is trying to prove.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aars Hond (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "ignoratio elenchi"
Despite the fact that it's in widespread circulation, "ignoratio elenchi" does not mean "by ignoring the issues" in Latin. It means "ignorance of what a refutation is" ("ignoratio" means "ignorance": it is in the nominative case and cannot mean "by ignoring"). "Elenchi" is the genitive singular of "elenchos", "refutation". The phrase is a translation of Aristotle's phrase tou elenkhou agnoia. In effect, Aristotle defines this as "not knowing what a valid argument is," and he argues (in his On Sophistical Refutations) that all fallacies can be reduced to this one fallacy.

The phrase "ignoratio elenchi" has developed a life of its own over the intervening two and a half millennia, and a range of meanings has been assigned to it. In my own opinion, some of the unclarity and confusion associated with this term result from ignorance of its rather narrow historical context.

--Robin Smith


 * I presume you mean "Greek", in the above :-)--Oscar Bravo (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I meant 'Latin'. The phrase ignoratio elenchi is Latin, not Greek. Its Greek equivalent is agnoia tou elenchou (SE 166b24, 168a18-19, 169a19, etc.). --Robin Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.75.5 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Red herring is not the same as ignoratio elenchi
I delete the red herring part, because this fallacy (although very similar) is not equivalent to or a case of ignoratio elenchi.

"Both the red herring and straw man fallacies are susceptible of being confused with missing the point, because all three involve a similar kind of irrelevancy. To avoid this confusion, one should note that both red herring and straw man proceed by generating a new set of premises, whereas missing the point does not. Straw man draws a conclusion from new premises that are obtained by distorting an earlier argument, and red herring, if it draws any conclusion at all, draws one from new premises obtained by changing the subject. Missing the point, however, draws a conclusion from the original premises. Also, in the red herring and straw man, the conclusion, if there is one, is relevant to the premises from which it is drawn; but in missing the point, the conclusion is irrelevant to the premises from which it is drawn." (A Concise Introduction to Logic, Hurley, 7th Edition)

DasAuge 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

origin of 'Red Herring'
I've found this: "A herring is a soft-finned bony fish. People who like to eat herring have long preserved them by salting and slow smoking them. That process makes a herring turn red or dark brown -- and gives them a very strong smell. Dogs love to sniff such smelly treats, a fact that makes the fish a perfect diversion for anyone trying to distract hunting dogs from the trail of their quarry. The practice of using preserved fish to confuse hunting dogs led to the use of the term 'red herring' for anything that diverts attention from the issue at hand." here, but I cannot see any copyright notices on the page.

Can (and should) we include this explanation?

Torzsmokus 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no. It is, itself, irrelevant and dervitive.


 * I disagree. I don't think it is irrelevant to place the phrase "red herring" in the context of its origin, especially as the usage of the phrase in the context of the logical fallacy is a metaphor drawn directly from that original usage.  For a person who knows that to draw a red herring across the trail  means "to attempt to distract those pursuing something from the object of their work", the meaning of the phrase "red herring" in the context of the logical fallacy becomes clear and vivid;  for a person without access to this metaphor, "red herring" is just a decontextualised and dead phrase. --76.127.149.73 (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Plural
"Themselves" is plural, whereas the formation of the sentence is singular, hence the necessity to use "himself"

Life's not fair
Is "Life's not fair", that traditional parental response to children's complaints that they have suffered an injustice, ignoratio elenchi? Le poulet noir 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The argument goes this way:  CHILD: I have not received justice.  PARENT: There is no justice, so you have no reason to complain about not receving any.  You can debate whether the parent's answer is true, but it is certainly a valid argument.  Fumblebruschi (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's an informal fallacy; "life's not fair" is definitely not true. If it were true, however, it would be a perfect response to any "It's not fair!", because "it" is always included in life.--Orthologist 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. It's a completely relevant conclusion.--Loodog (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain
The mccain's example is ridiculous propaganda and is NOT an example of red-herring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.206.191 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, please add new topics to the bottom of the talk page.


 * The McCain example is not propaganda because it is a true example of ignoratio elenchi. Argument summarized:


 * DeGeneres: You're not giving me equal rights. It's not fair.
 * McCain: You speak well. We have a disagreement.


 * Neither of those conclusions addresses DeGeneres's comment about unfairness of exclusion. If it feel too politically charged, feel free to add an Obama example as I'm sure they also exist.  Every politician uses ignoratio elenchi.--Loodog (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement of eloquence is an Appeal to flattery.
 * No, it's not. An appeal to flattery is a fallacy that attempts to show that all smart/strong/beautiful people would agree to a given statement, and that because one is smart/strong/beautiful, he or should should naturally agree to it. Calling Degeneres eloquent is from a formal standpoint irrelevant, and thus somewhat ignoratio elenchi, but it's not irrelevant to the conversation in itself. Here McCain is merely being polite. I would further say that this conversation is not the best example of ignoratio elenchi because he is not claiming, implying, or acting as if Degeneres's eloquence or their disagreement is germane to the question of who can marry who else. 03:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the whole point: the response is irrelevant to the argument, whether or not it's acknowledged or intentional.


 * Also, "it's not irrelevant to the conversation". Of course it's not.  It is, however, irrelevant to the argument of gay marriage.--Loodog (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that McCain's comments are irrelevant to the argument of same-sex marriage, but allow me to clarify what I was thinking on ignoratio elenchi. According to the definition given in the first sentence of the article, "Ignoratio elenchi ... is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question." My point is that while the eloquence comment "does not address the issue in question", it is not (nor, as far as I can tell, was it to be taken as) an argument. McCain intended to end the discussion of same-sex marriage in a polite way, not send it down the garden path. 96.248.235.84 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you've stated your argument in English and I can read English, therefore I can read your argument. But because you must have used keys to enter it, I can only conclude that I'm right: McCain was using an ignoratio elenchi.--Loodog (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys I removed this example. I sure this example just appeared very recently (which would suggest trolling, why else pointlessly add political fuel?) or so but lets not turn this into a political debate when there are plenty of other examples that wont ruin the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.128.210 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not trolling and I added that a month ago. It's a legitimate example.  Politicians use ignoratio elenchi often.  If you think it assumes a POV, feel free to add an example with Obama.--Loodog (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is there any way someone could include a pronunciation for the phrase, I think it might be useful. Thank you. 76.16.122.114 (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is pronounced thus: ignɔɾatioː ɛleŋkʰi Nothingist (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ad Hominem
Reading the article with no previous knowledge, it seems that there is a certain overlap here with an "Ad Hominem" argument. This may just be the choice of examples, but it might be worth adding something explaining the overlap, and the distinction.

As I understand it, Ad Hominem can be a kind of ignoratio elenchi - you ignore the main point of discussion ("Is this a good tax policy?") by attacking the proponent of the opposing view ("The minister admitted to taking cannabis while at university"). Brickie (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Maher example
Someone removed the Bill Maher example, saying it was an opinion, not an argument. First off, it doesn't matter. If I say "Tall people are dumb", then "philosophers are smart" is still an ignoratio elenchi. Second, it is an opinion, formed out of argument:

Axioms:
 * 1) If you had been born in Pakistan, you wouldn't be believing in Jesus Christ.
 * 2) Fundamental truths are not arbitrary, but universal to all people.

1->3

3: Religious beliefs are influenced by location of birth.

4: Location of birth is not universal to all people.

3 and 4->5

5 and stated conclusion: Religious beliefs are arbitrary.

5 and 2->6

6 (implied): Religious beliefs are not fundamental truths.

This is an argument, whether or not it's sound. Scarborough's response that Maher's conclusion is his "opinion" (which is obvious) does nothing to address the axioms, implications, or logic used in the Maher's argument.--Loodog (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern use?
I question whether or not we should put back the sentence I removed:"Modern use limits this term much more narrowly to the kind of mistake described in the first paragraph above." In general a single sentence paragraph should be extremely noteworthy. But I myself do not see the differences of interpretation between the two paragraphs it claims to address. Rather the two paragraphs seem more harmonious and mutually supportive than the sentence would seem to imply.

If good reason can be found to put the sentence back, let it first cited. Perhaps then we can fit it in more aesthetically. As it was, it was not specific enough to add anything useful. That's why it was removed.  Cp i r al  Cpiral  21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation of ignorance
The first paragraph had, as it's last sentence: "(Some sources give by ignorance of the issues or even by ignoring the issues as a translation of ignoratio elenchi.)" and I think it is an interesting point. But the paragraph is about "ignorance" and "refutation" as a phrase together, and not about either word in isolation. It was not removed just because it was not cited.

The role of ignorance in causation makes for subtle debate that deserves it's own space elsewhere. That is why there are two sources of interpretation of this Latin phrase. In my opinion there is even room in this subject for such a topic as whether ignorance is an act of ignoring, or a state of mind. It beautifully echos it's own larger context with "red herring". If and when that subject is developed here, the sentence removed will stand supreme in it. But in that case it will have been cited.  Cp i r al  Cpiral  22:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Examples"
The current purported examples of this fallacy are *terrible*. They are both examples of simply invalid arguments, if it even makes sense to dignify them with the word "argument." Each is just a hasty generalization. I have emended the page with an example that makes it clear that an ignoratio elenchi is a *valid* argument with an irrelevant conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.180.102 (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ignoratio elenchi → Irrelevant conclusion – easier to understand. Petr Matas 07:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The example about social media ...
.. is utter shit. If I didn't already understand what the phrase meant, I would understand even less after reading it.

Is it perhaps a recursive example, a kind of meta onomatopoeia?