Ignoratio elenchi means ignorance to refute an argument

Ignoratio elenchi means ignorance to refute an argument. An assertion is refuted when its opposite, either its contrary or contradictory, is established.

But instead of presenting a contrary or contradictory of the conclusion if one proves something else with the impression that the assertion is thereby refuted, then the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi is committed. Aristotle used the term elenchi to mean refutation of an argument by presenting its contradictory through a syllogism.

In the contemporary usage, ignoratio elenchi means arguing irrelevantly or beside the point. If one argues irrelevantly in refuting somebody’s contentions, then he commits this fallacy.

So also if one argues irrelevantly in proving his position he also commits this fallacy. The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi admits different forms. We shall discuss some very common types. Understanding these will help to know the troublesome errors in our day today reasoning.

i. Argumentum ad hominem

The phrase “argumentum ad hominem” means argument against the person. When the thrust of the argument is directed at the person but not against his argument this fallacy is committed. If a person instead of showing the unreasonableness of his opponent’s argument argues against his character or personality, he commits this fallacy. That means an attitude of disapproval towards a person is evoked to refuse his view.

For example, suppose a person speaks against smoking and its bad effects. But without examining the cogency of his view or argument, if someone remarks that the person also smokes and has no right to speak against smoking, he commits this fallacy. Or if we argue that what a man has said must be false because he is a naxalite or that he comes from a disreputed family. Here a conclusion is opposed because the person upholding it is believed to be of bad character or doubtful integrity.

ii. Argumentum ad populum

Instead of arguing on rational ground there is appeal to emotion and passion of the people in this argument. People’s sentiment is excited so that they will accept or reject a view without any judicious consideration. Fundamentalists or communalists create communal frenzy among the people to hate people of other religious faith.

Advertising agencies appeal to the emotion of the people to purchase their products. These are instances of this argument. Suppose a casteist appeals to the people, caste system should prevail, because our ancestors accepted it. We are definitely not wiser than our ancestors to abolish it.

Here there is appeal to the emotion of the people. Instead of examining how far caste system is good or bad, one appeals to the emotion and passion of the people to accept the system. Thus when there is attempt to excite the passion of the people to favour or oppose some view, there arises this fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

iii. Argumentum ad ignorantiam

This fallacy means argument from ignorance. It consists in throwing the burden on the opponent. A proposition is considered true simply on the ground that it has not been proved false or that it is false because it has not been proved true by the apponent.

Taking the advantage of the ignorance of the opponent if someone tries to establish his claim he commits this fallacy. For the claimaint does not give reason for his own argument, but throws the burden on the opponents to disprove his claim.

For example a religious man asks his opponet to believe in the existence of God if he cannot prove God’s non-existence. The person does not prove God’s existence but asks his opponent to disprove God’s existence lest to believe Him.

iv. Argumentum ad Verecundiam

Here there is appeal to authority but not to reason. Of course it is not unreasonable to be guided by the knowledge of an expert or authority. If a person is an acknowledged expert in some field we believe his statement and by that we commit 1 no fallacy.

An expert’s opinion is dependable because he is supposed to have expertise knowledge in some field. Of course his statement is not conclusive as experts also differ at times.

e. But the fallacy of argumentum ad Verecundiam arises when there is respect or veneration for a person or some work on some emotional ground.

It means if there is no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand, then there arises this fallacy. If someone says that caste system should prevail because Manu has supported it in his work called Manusamhita, then we commit this fallacy. Or if it is argued that God is the creator of the universe because religious scriptures say so. This fallacy arises when something is accepted to be true because some greatman or the scriptures say like that.

v. Argumentum ad baculutn

This fallacy arises when the opponent is suppressed by physical force. Here the opponent is coerced to accept a view. When rational methods fail, this is used as the last resort. It means might is right. Here a conclusion is insisted upon the opponent by using force either overtly or in a subtle way by applying some trick. In the primitive society things were decided by a duel. Terrorists use force to threaten their opponent. Nations practices it, police use it to make the suspect confess the crime.

vi. The fallacy of non-sequitor or what does not follow

Non-sequitor means what does not follow. It is also called the fallacy of consequent. In a hypothetical proposition there are two parts such as the antecedent and the consequent. The antecedent contains the condition and the consequent contains the result that follows from the antecedent.

The consequent can be affirmed when the antecedent is true but not conversely. That means the antecedent cannot be affirmed if the consequent is true. The antecedent and the consequent are not mutually convertible. Let us take an example to illustrate it.

When (if) it rains, the ground becomes wet

The ground is wet

It has rained.

This form of inference is fallacious because the affirmation of the antecedent does not follow from the affirmation of the consequent. For there may be different causes giving rise to the effect. In the above example the ground may be wet due to various other causes. This fallacy is committed if we overlook the possibility of plurality of causes.

vii. Fallacy of Plures interrogations or many questions

Fallacy of Plures interrogations means many questions. Some also call it fallacy of complex questions. The question is tricky and posed craftly. If at least two or more questions are joined together into one and a plain answer, either yes or no, is expected, it puts the opponents in a puzzling situation. For whatever answer he gives will go against him.

Suppose we ask a person, “Have you stopped torturing your wife?” or “have you given up smoking?”. If the person says “yes”, that would justify that he was torturing his wife in the past or that he was smoking previously. If he says “no”, then it will prove that he is still torturing his wife, or that he is still smoking.

Actually the question is craftly formulated as it contains two questions. In the first case it means he was tortuing in the past and also continuing it. So any single answer will not serve his interest. Hence he should split the question into two parts and deny them separately. He should say that he was neither doing it in the past, nor is he doing it now.

In another form of the argument many predicates are attached to one subject or many subjects are attached to one predicate. In any case a single answer would put the person in a false position.

For example, if it is asked “Is Milan a Brahmin and rich?” If you say “yes” you accept both the predicates and if you say “no” you deny both the predicates. But if one of the predicates is true and the other is false, then the entire answer is false. So you have to answer that he is a Brahmin but not rich or he is rich but not a Brahmin. Unless the answer is given in this way you will be in a false position by wrong implication. So also when there are many subjects of one predicate a similar situation arises.

Are Amar, Akbar and Anthony Indians?

Any single answer yes or no will put the person in a false position if one of them is not an Indian. So the answer should be precisely given who are Indians and who is not.

viii. Fallacy of hysteron Proteron

The fallacy of hysteron proteron means putting the cart before the horse or putting the last before the first. In the usual logical order of an argument the premise is given first and the conclusion is inferred from it.

This fallacy is explained in the simile of horse and cart. It is convenient to put the horse before the cart so that the horse can pull the cart. But if the order is changed and the cart is put before the horse, no result will come. Similarly if the order or procedure of an argument is changed that will lead to confusion.

In an argument if the conclusion is stated first and evidences in support of the conclusion are put there-after that confuses the reader.

Here the confusion is with regard to the order of the argument, but not with the cogency of the argument.

Let us take an example. If one says “The Vedas and the Rig Veda are the revealed scriptures, so they are holy”. In this argument the second part is redun­dant. If the Vedas are the revealed scriptures, so too the Rig Veda for the Vedas include the Rig Veda. So to say the Vedas and Rig Veda would be confusing.

ix. Fallacy of shifting the ground

The fallacy is committed when one shifts his stand from time to time. One does not remain firm in his stand rather changes it from time to time to favour his position.

Suppose a person charges his neighbour with some offence. But when he fails to justify his charge he shifts his ground and maintains that the neighbor’s father was a thief. How can the son of a thief be good. But even if his father was of doubtful integrity that does not justify the misconduct of his son.

Similarly in some argument if a person feels that his position is becoming weak, he shifts the theme to divert the attention of the opponent.