PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Ignoratio elenchi
An ancient fallacy identified by Aristotle. (128). When one attempts to argue something, but instead succeeds in arguing something else. (128).
Philosophy Lander
Cited
'Ignoratio elenchi is a name used for arguments whose premisses (premises, my correction) have no direct relation on the claim at issue. In this sense of the term, almost any fallacy could be considered an instance of ignoratio elenchi .
In general, the ignoratio elenchi occurs when an argument purporting to establish a specific conclusion is directed, instead, to proving a different conclusion. This version is often termed the red herring fallacy—an irrelevant subject is interjected into the conversation to divert attention away from the main issue.'
---
Example of the Ignoratio elenchi fallacy:
The thesis that one attempts to prove via argument becomes not relevant. (128). It is a fallacy of irrelevant thesis. (128).
My example of this fallacy:
Premise 1: Montreal is a very European city, by Canadian standards.
Premise 2: Montreal has significant sport, art and culture.
Conclusion: The National Hockey League should bring back the Montreal Maroons franchise.
The premises are being used fallaciously. These would better work within an argument for Montreal as a tourist destination.
To support the return of the Montreal Maroons, reasonable premises would be such that Montreal is a large hockey market, a large television market, a traditional hockey market, a market that already has a billion dollar club present and can support another.
Hypothetically:
Montreal has a new suitable arena being build (not the case at present and so this lack is a premise against).
---
The arguer wants to demonstrate that although a man in question may have done one thing, he did not do another. (129).
Pirie provides the example (paraphrased): 'Well, John, that is not the point is it? What we have done is to...'(130).
The first point from John will be negated, while the point of the arguer will be pursued.
'Well, John, the point is not that Jesus Christ is second person of the Trinity and his atoning work and resurrection, the point is that many people in this secularized, scientific Western world today, do not have any concern for Christianity or religion!'
But in reality, the primary point that John is making is that the work of Christ is God's Biblical answer to and for any everlasting life for humanity. The existence of secular thinking and science does not disprove Biblical theology. Science is a different academic discipline than is Religious Studies and different data is used to create premises and conclusions. In attempts to find truth.
The arguer does not like John's premises because they will lead to a conclusion the arguer disagrees with and so he attempts to twist John's argumentation into a more favourable conclusion.
 |
