Talk:Irrelevant conclusion

message: 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)
thread_title:  The minister's tax policy 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Defense Lawyer 

message: "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)
thread_title: Examples

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meaning of "ignoratio elenchi" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Red herring is not the same as ignoratio elenchi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  origin of 'Red Herring' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree.  It's a completely relevant conclusion.--Loodog (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Life's not fair

message: 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)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: 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)
thread_title: Ad Hominem

message: 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: 
#If you had been born in Pakistan, you wouldn't be believing in Jesus Christ.
#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)
thread_title:  Bill Maher example 

message: I question whether or not we should put back the sentence I removed: 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.
CpiralCpiral 21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern use? 

message: The first paragraph had, as it's last sentence:  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.  
CpiralCpiral 22:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of ''ignorance'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Examples"