Key notes on various forms of fallacy of relevance

When the premises in an argument do not provide relevant reason for believing the truth of the conclusion, this fallacy is committed.

In other words, when the premises are not relevant to the conclusion the fallacy of relevance is committed. This fallacy has many forms, appeal to force, appeal to pity, appeal to the people, appeal to authority, argument against the person (abusive, circumstantial, to queue), appeal to ignorance, and irrelevant conclusion are important forms of this fallacy.

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum):

This fallacy occurs when one uses a threat of force instead of logically relevant reasons in support of a claim. Fallacious appeal to force occurs when the person arguing for a proposal tells that unpleasant consequences will follow if it is not accepted. It is reflected in the slogan “Might is right”. While issuing a threat might be effective ways to get someone agree to your proposal, it offers no grounds for believing that it is true. The fallacy is committed in the following examples:

(I) you must agree that my proposal is correct. You will be dismissed from your job if you do not accept it.

(ii) What the scripture says must be true, because if you refuse to accept its truth the gods will punish you.

Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam):

Fallacious appeal to pity occurs when an arguer tries to evoke pity instead of citing logically relevant reasons to accept a conclusion. This fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. It should be borne in mind that one’s pitiful state has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition one is arguing for.

For example, an examinee who pleads that he deserves pass mark on the ground that his parents are very poor or that his mother is ailing is appealing to pity. The poverty, illness of his mother and the unfortunate consequences that will follow if he fails are not relevant to the issue of how much mark he deserves.

Appeal to the People {argumentum ad populum):

“Argumentum ad populum” literally means “argument to the people”. This fallacy is committed when someone argues that a proposition is true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some elite sector of the population. The appeal also often relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an audience to accept its conclusion. This fallacy has many names. This is also known as Appealing to the Gallery, Appeal to Emotion, or Appealing to the Crowd.

Consider, for example, the advertisement: “Join the Pepsi generation!” It declares that by drinking Pepsi you will be a part of an elite group. But it tells us nothing about the qualities of the soft drink. If it is put forth as a part of an argument, it will be fallacious. Consider the following argument:

The vast majority of people believe that capital punishment has a great deterrent effect.

So this must be the correct view.

Here an appeal has been made to the majority opinion in support of the claim that capital punishment has great deterrent effect.

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam):

Sometimes an appeal is made to the opinion of famous persons to win support for an assertion. Appeal to authority is inappropriate when the person cited is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject. Further appeal to authority is also inappropriate if the experts in the field disagree on the point at issue.

For example, if one argues in support of God’s existence on the ground that Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in the existence of God, then it will be an inappropriate appeal to authority. Even where an expert’s opinion is cited who happens to be an authority on the topic, we may accept it as inductive evidence but not as deductive proof of the truth of a conclusion.

Argument against the Person (argumentum ad hominem):

This fallacy occurs when a person is attacked instead of the assertion itself. One is asked to reject a proposition because the person who asserts it is in some way disreputable. This fallacy also occurs when a discussion is moved to a personal level through character assassination or personal attacks. The ad hominem fallacy has three major forms. These are abusive, circumstantial, and tu quoque.

When an arguer attacks a person’s character rather than the assertion made by that person, ad hominem (abusive) fallacy is committed. Add hominem (circumstantial) fallacy is committed when instead of attacking an assertion an arguer points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person’s circumstances.

Ad holninem (tu quoque) fallacy is an attack on the person on the ground that the person does not practice what he preaches. This fallacy is committed when someone, instead of attacking an argument, tries to refute it by saying that the arguer does the very thing he or she is arguing against. The following can be considered as examples of these fallacies.

(I) “You claim that atheists can be moral – but you claim to be an atheist and yet indulge in unfair and dishonest practices.” (Ad hominem abusive)

(ii) “You say that the Government should guarantee free elementary education for all children, but you are a publisher of text books for children and you stand to gain from this, (ad hominem circumstantial)

(iii) “You advise me that I should not smoke, but you are a chain smoker!” (Ad hominem tu quoque)

Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorant am):

The fallacy occurs when it is argued that something must be true simply because it hasn’t been proved false, or that something must be false because it hasn’t been proved true. It assumes that since there is no evidence against a claim the claim must be true. It proposes that we accept the truth of a proposition unless an opponent can prove otherwise. But the absence of evidence against a proposition is not enough to secure its truth. This fallacy is committed in the following examples.

(I) No one has proven that ghosts do not exist, so ghosts exist.

(ii) It has not been shown that there is life on Mars. So, there is no life on Mars.

Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi):

This fallacy occurs when an arguer tries to establish the truth of an assertion by offering an argument that in fact offers support for some other conclusion. Such arguments purpose to prove one thing but prove a different conclusion. Consider the following argument:

“Children should get sufficient attention from their parents. Since working parents cannot give sufficient attention to their children, mothers should not take up any job.”

The argument supports some conclusion generally about working parents, but not a conclusion focused on women alone.