{"id":5396,"date":"2021-10-23T11:50:14","date_gmt":"2021-10-23T09:50:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5396"},"modified":"2025-05-13T13:32:55","modified_gmt":"2025-05-13T11:32:55","slug":"5396-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/5396-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Relevance"},"content":{"rendered":"

RELEVANCE<\/span>
\nIGNORATIO ELENCHI<\/span><\/em><\/h1>\n

1. \u201cIgnorance of refutation\u201d, a fallacy of method<\/span><\/h2>\n

The fallacy of \u201cignorance of refutation\u201d (<\/em>Latin ignoratio elenchi <\/em>[1]) is defined in relation to the dialectical<\/a> game. In this game,
\n– One participant, the respondent<\/em> (or proponent), is committed to a proposition P<\/strong>.
\n– His partner, the questioner<\/em> (or opponent), tries to lead the respondent, into a contradiction by making him assert not-P<\/strong>, i.e., refute the proposition he had previously accepted.<\/p>\n

Only contradictory propositions are considered In this game (one and only one of them is true). The opponent must follow the rules of the dialectical<\/a> method to actually refute the original proposition in reality (and not just appear to do so, as the Sophists do).<\/p>\n

In Aristotle’s catalog of fallacies<\/a> the fallacy of ignorance of refutation<\/em> is independent of language, it occurs \u201cbecause the terms \u2018proof\u2019 or \u2018refutation\u2019 have not been defined, and because something is left out in their definition\u201d. (Aristotle, R. S.<\/em>, 167a20, \u00a75).
\nIn other words, the misconception of refutation<\/em> is a general term that covering all methodological errors<\/em> that may occur in a dialectical game.<\/p>\n

This concept can be extended to the argumentative language games<\/em>:<\/strong> \u201cThe arguer argues and does not know how to argue; he thinks something is being proved or refuted successfully, when it is not; his practical concept of argument is flawed.\u201d<\/p>\n

This basically happens when an argument does not respect the principles of relevance<\/strong>. On the one hand, the argument must be relevant to the conclusion<\/em> (internal relevance)<\/span> and, on the other hand, the conclusion must be relevant as an answer to the\u00a0<\/em>argumentative question<\/a><\/span> that organizes the debate (external relevance).<\/p>\n

2. Relevance of the Argument to the Conclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n

In the context of a dialectical game, the respondent asserts P<\/strong>.\u00a0 Starting from P,<\/strong> the questioner deductively constructs a chain of propositions admitted by the respondent that ends with the proposition not-P.<\/strong> Admitting\u00a0 P and not-P<\/strong> , the respondent is apparently refuted, and the questioner has won the game.
\nHowever, the respondent claims that the chain of evidence supporting not-P<\/strong> is not valid because the arguments presented do not actually support that conclusion. Thus, the respondent holds that the questioner has actually failed to prove not-P<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

This illustrate the general situation in which an arguer claims to have refuted an opponent ex datis<\/em>, that is using only beliefs and modes of inference that the opponent admits.\u00a0 The opponent can resist the refutation by breaking the chain of\u00a0 inferences leading to the conclusive step that he is supposedly forced to concede. In other words, the opponent argues that the arguments are irrelevant to the conclusion<\/em>.<\/span> <\/strong>
\nThis point actually involves the entire program of argumentation criticism.<\/p>\n

3. Relevance of the Conclusion as an Answer to the Question<\/span><\/h1>\n

In the general case, the proponent commits himself to P<\/strong>, the opponent then constructs a chain of propositions from P<\/strong> , ending with proposition Q<\/strong>. The proponent claims that \u201cQ<\/strong> = not-P<\/strong>\u201d.
\nThe proponent replies that proposition Q<\/strong> is not equivalent to not-P<\/strong>, and that P<\/strong> has therefore not been refuted.
\nIn other words, the proponent claims that the opponent’s argument may be relevant to the conclusion Q<\/strong>, but that this conclusion does not disprove the original proposition to which the opponent is committed.<\/span><\/p>\n

To argue that an intervention is externally irrelevant<\/strong><\/span> is to argue that it misses the point, or is off-topic. It may also be denounced as an attempt to mislead the opponent (red herring<\/a>). The charge of paralogism is then reinforced by the suspicion of sophistry.<\/p>\n

Criticisms of internal relevance and external relevance are cumulative. They invalidate an argument by saying that 1) it does not support the conclusion, and that, moreover, 2) the conclusion is irrelevant to the question.<\/p>\n

4. The Question is Irrelevant to the \u201cReal Debate\u201d<\/span><\/h2>\n

The dialectical framework is binary, the proposition to be discussed is expressed as a simple, explicit statement, and the methodology of a refutative discussion is well-defined. Since the question is \u201cP<\/strong> or not-P<\/strong>?\u201d, claiming that the opponent’s conclusion does not logically contradict P<\/strong>, is\u00a0 claiming that it is not relevant to the debate.<\/p>\n

The situation can be equally clear in an ordinary debate. A student disputes, that is, wants to \u201cdisprove\u201d the grade he has received.<\/p>\n

If you don’t raise my grade, I’ll fail the exam; please, I desperately need just three more points!<\/em><\/p>\n

The argument from consequences is quite valid, but the negative consequences of the bad grade are irrelevant to determining the grade (at least according to the classical scientific and educational regimes). The student’s conclusion is irrelevant, because it fails to address the real question: \u201cWhat grade does my work deserve in itself?<\/em>\u201d. The student’s question is different from the teacher’s, and the teacher is the master of the question.<\/p>\n

Things can be more complicated. When the proponent refutes the rebuttal by saying, \u201cWhat you disagree with has nothing to do with what I am saying<\/em>\u201d, it can be difficult to pin down what he is actually saying. His claim can be constantly reformulated and reinterpreted see reformulation of speech.<\/a><\/span>
\nEven when the original claim and its intended refutation have been previously written down, the connection between the two does not necessarily have the clarity of a binary contradiction. For example, does S2<\/strong> refute S1,<\/strong> or does it merely show that the issue is complex:<\/p>\n

S1: \u2014\u00a0Speculators buy commodities in advance just to speculate on future price fluctuations. Such operations with commodities should be prohibited by law.
\n<\/em>S2: \u2014 However, it is essential for companies to buy the raw materials they need in advance to protect themselves against price fluctuations.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, in ordinary argumentation, the issue<\/em> itself may be controversial. When none of the participants is the master of the question, each key participant will be tempted to define the question, and reject the opponent’s answer as irrelevant:<\/p>\n

S1: \u2014\u00a0That’s not the question!
\n<\/em>S2: \u2014\u00a0That’s is my answer to the real problems. You’re not asking the right question.<\/em><\/p>\n

The charge of fallacy of conclusion irrelevant to the question <\/strong><\/em>under debate can be answered by a counter-charge of a fallacious, wrongly formulated question<\/em>, irrelevant<\/em> to the \u201creal\u201d debate.<\/span><\/p>\n

The role of the third party, be it the judge, the universal audience or the informed participants, is to construct, manage and decide upon the question. Accordingly, they have the responsability to determine what is or is not relevant to the debate.\u00a0 The Aristotelian dialectical method has not third parties. This may explain why it cannot be applied directly to human-human disputes in natural language.<\/p>\n

\n

[1] Latin ignoratio elenchi<\/em>. The Greek word [elenkhos<\/em>] means: \u201c1. Argument to refute … 2. Proof in general\u201d (Bailly, [elenkhos<\/em>])\u201d. The Latin title of Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations<\/em> is De Sophisticis Elenchis<\/em> (Hamblin 1970, 305).<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RELEVANCE IGNORATIO ELENCHI 1. \u201cIgnorance of refutation\u201d, a fallacy of method The fallacy of \u201cignorance of refutation\u201d (Latin ignoratio elenchi [1]) is defined in relation to the dialectical game. In this game, – One participant, the respondent (or proponent), is committed to a proposition P. – His partner, the questioner (or opponent), tries to lead […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5396","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5396"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5396\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14283,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5396\/revisions\/14283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}