====== Ignoratio Elenchi ======

(Latin/Ancient Greek: “ignorance of the [proper] refutation”) is a term used to describe various forms of [[rhetoric:defeasible_arguments:index|fallacious arguments]]. It refers to arguments that are not suitable for supporting the position put forward, or that do not refute the opposing position.

===== Alternative names =====

  * Missing the point
  * (Fallacy of the) irrelevant conclusion

===== Origin and definition =====

[[wp>Aristotle|Aristotle]] already used this term in his [[wp>Organon|Organon]], albeit with a much broader meaning than is customary today – in the Aristotelian sense, the term encompassed practically all (logical and rhetorical) fallacies.

This very broad interpretation of the term is no longer used today; instead, <i :la>Ignoratio elenchi</i> is now mostly used as a synonym for a (rhetorical) diversionary tactic (<span maniculus "see:">[[rhetoric:red_herrings:index|red herrings]]</span>).

In the context of this site, the term is further narrowed down and refers //only// to rhetorical errors resulting from errors in reasoning (both intentional or unintentional). The term is thus the //rhetorical// counterpart to how <i :la>[[logic:formal_fallacies:index|non sequitur]]</i> is used in the field of [[logic:index|logic]].

===== Description =====

In this sense, <i :la>Ignoratio elenchi</i> refers to any form of argument which is not suitable for weakening or refuting the argument in question. This includes, among others, the following spurious arguments and diversionary tactics:

  * [[rhetoric:red_herrings:ad-hoc-argument|Ad hoc argument]]
  * [[knowledge:anecdotal_argument:index|Anecdotal argument]]
  * [[rhetoric:appeal_to_consequences|Appeal to consequences]]
  * [[rhetoric:straw_man|Strawman (argument)]]
  * [[ambiguity:motte-and-bailey|Motte-and-bailey (fallacy)]]
  * [[rhetoric:defeasible_arguments:authority:false_authority:index|(Appeal to a) False authority]]
  * [[rhetoric:red_herrings:whataboutism:index|Whataboutism]]

It should be noted however that there are exceptions to practically all of the above, where such arguments may be justified. In these cases, of course, they are of course not fallacious. 

===== Examples =====
==== Vaccinated or recovered ====

A real and very fitting example of such a spurious argument comes from an online forum in a discussion on the question: “Should you have your children vaccinated against Covid-19?” during the [[wp>COVID-19 pandemic|Covid-19 pandemic]] (2020-22).

While the actual question was the subject of a controversial but nonetheless objective discussion in the forum, one participant put forward the following argument (somewhat paraphrased here):

> <u questionable "Unsubstantiated claim">Children should not be vaccinated, but rather rely on their natural immune systems.</u>

As evidence, a link was provided to a study whose main finding could be summarised as follows:

> The probability of a severe course of COVID-19 infection is higher in patients who have only received one //vaccination// than in those who have already recovered from an //infection//.

However, this result (which, in this simplified form at least, would not stand up to critical scrutiny) only supports the thesis at first glance: because the real question is what risk there is to children who have //no// immune response to the pathogen – in other words, the choice is only between //vaccinated// or //unvaccinated//.

Or, viewed from another perspective: the only way for parents to put their children in the – potentially better – position of having a better immune response to Covid-19 through //recovery// than through //vaccination// would be to deliberately or negligently infect them with the virus. However, this alternative is undoubtedly much more risky – both for the children and for the people around them – than a vaccination.

<aside info>**Note:** We can draw some conclusions from the study mentioned above: namely, that under certain circumstances, it may not be necessary for those who have already recovered to get vaccinated (but it is best to consult your GP for advice on this). For everyone else, vaccination is the best way to avoid severe Covid-19 infection.</aside>

FIXME **This article is still in progress. More examples will follow.**

===== See also =====

  * [[relevancy:index|Fallacies of relevancy]]
  * [[logic:formal_fallacies:non_sequitur|Non sequitur]] ([[logic:formal_fallacies:index|formal fallacies]])

===== Further information =====

  * [[wp>Irrelevant conclusion|Irrelevant conclusion]] on //Wikipedia//
  * [[https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignoratio.html|Ignoratio Elenchi]] on //Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic//
  * [[https://archive.org/details/L400AristotleIIISophisticalRefutationsComingToBePassingAwayTheCosmos/page/n5/mode/2up|Aristotle: On Sophistical Refutations]], English translation by E.S. Forster (1955). Book scan on //Archive.org//