Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal falla

cy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails n
onetheless to address the issue in question. More colloquially, it is also known
as "Missing the Point."
Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.[2] It is on
e of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he
asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.[3][4]
Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy which arises from ignoran
ce of the nature of refutation. In order to refute an assertion, Aristotle says w
e must prove its contradictory; the proof, consequently, of a proposition which
stood in any other relation than that to the original, would be an ignoratio ele
nchi Since Aristotle, the scope of the fallacy has been extended to include all c
ases of proving the wrong point
I am required to prove a certain conclusion; I pro
ve, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it; in that lies the fa
llacy For instance, instead of proving that this person has committed an atrocious
fraud, you prove that this fraud he is accused of is atrocious;
The nature of the f
allacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more
or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy d
oes not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the
substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitu
te a proof of the original one It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy
and it assumes a great variety of forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever for
m it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of
it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close re
lation with it.[5]
Arthur Ernest Davies, "Fallacies" in A Text-Book of Logic
The phrase ignoratio elenchi is from Latin, meaning "an ignoring of a refutation
". Here elenchi is the genitive singular of the Latin noun elenchus, which is fr
om Ancient Greek ??????? (elenchos), meaning "an argument of disproof or refutat
ion".[6] The translation in English of the Latin expression has varied somewhat.
Hamblin proposed "misconception of refutation" or "ignorance of refutation" as
a literal translation,[7] John Arthur Oesterle preferred "ignoring the issue",[7
] Irving Copi, Christopher Tindale and others used "irrelevant conclusion".[7][8
]
An example might be a situation where A and B are debating whether the law permi
ts A to do something.
A: I want to use the unwritten law (the right of a cuckolded husband to kill his
unfaithful wife's lover) to kill C.
B: But the law in this state specifically doesn't recognize the unwritten law.
A: Well, it ought to recognize it.
A's attempt to support his position with an argument that the law ought to allow
him to do this, would make him guilty of ignoratio elenchi.[9] (And if he did d
o that, probably guilty of premeditated murder.)
Dr Johnson's unique "refutation" of Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism, his claim t
hat matter did not actually exist but only seemed to exist,[10] has been describ
ed as Ignoratio elenchi:[11] during a conversation with Boswell, Johnson powerfu
lly kicked a nearby stone and proclaimed of Berkeley's theory, "I refute it thus
!"[12] (See also ad lapidem.)
A related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to d
ivert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.[2] Ignoratio elenchi is some
times confused with straw man argument.[2] For example, it has been incorrectly
described as "attacking what the other fellow never said" (which is actually a s
traw man fallacy) by Peter Jay in an article in a 1996 article in New Statesman.
[13][verification needed]