Table of Contents

Ignoratio Elenchi

(Latin/Ancient Greek: “ignorance of the [proper] refutation”) is a term used to describe various forms of 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

Origin and definition

Aristotle already used this term in his 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, Ignoratio elenchi is now mostly used as a synonym for a (rhetorical) diversionary tactic (red herrings).

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 non sequitur is used in the field of logic.

Description

In this sense, Ignoratio elenchi 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:

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 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):

Children should not be vaccinated, but rather rely on their natural immune systems.

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.

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

See also

Further information