====== Relevancy ======

Arguments or forms of reasoning that seem plausible at first glance, but which may not actually contribute to the evaluation of a proposed position.

===== Other names =====

  * <i :la>[[glossary:ignoratio_elenchi|Ignoratio elenchi]]</i>
  * Fallacies of irrelevance

===== Description =====

In any discourse, there are usually good arguments both //pro// and //contra// the discussed position. But there are also arguments that only look plausible at a first glance, but turn out to be irrelevant or even misleading on closer examination.

Often such argumentations are misleading, precisely because they may make sense in certain circumstances, but in others they actually make no contribution to clarifying an issue.

===== Topics =====

  * [[relevancy:fallacy-fallacy|Fallacy-Fallacy]] (<i :la>Argumentum ad Logicam</i>)
  * [[relevancy:authority:index|Appeal to authority]]
    * [[relevancy:authority:false_authority:index|(Appeal to a) False authority]]
      * Appeal to tradition
      * Bandwagon fallacy
      * Honour by association
  * [[relevancy:false_dichotomy|False dichotomy]]
  * <i :la>[[relevancy:petitio_principii|Petitio principii]]</i> ("presuppose what is yet to be proven")
  * [[relevancy:wishful_thinking:index|Wishful thinking]]
    * [[relevancy:wishful_thinking:arrival_fallacy|Arrival Fallacy]]

Articles in other categories, which can also be understood as fallacies of relevance:

  * [[rhetoric:red_herrings:index|Red herrings]]
  * [[knowledge:anecdotal_argument:index|Anecdotal argument]]
  * [[logic:emergence:index|Fallacies of emergence]]
    * [[logic:emergence:division|Fallacy of division]]
    * [[logic:emergence:composition|Fallacy of composition]]
  * [[generalization:naturalistic_fallacy|Naturalistic fallacy]]
  * [[ambiguity:motte-and-bailey|Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy]]

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

  * <i :la>[[glossary:ignoratio_elenchi|Ignoratio elenchi]]</i>