That may be the most common logical fallacy I see in comments at Sound Politics. Here's a brief article on the fallacy, with this definition:
Ignoratio elenchi (also known as Irrelevant conclusion) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support.
For example, let's say a post argues that illegal votes were cast in the 2004 Washington state election. (As one or two posts here have.) A commenter who replies with "What about Florida in 2000?", or something similar, is committing this fallacy. Even if they are right in their discussion of the Florida election — and they rarely are — what they are saying is irrelevant to the argument made in the post.
Some commit this logical error unintentionally; they see a post they don't like, and they react emotionally by changing the subject. Others commit the error deliberately in an effort to weaken the effect of a post by redirecting the discussion. I cannot see into another person's heart, so I won't give examples of the deliberate use of the fallacy, but I think you can find some without much effort.
But I will give you this general observation: When someone commits this fallacy, they are, in effect, conceding that they have lost this particular argument. And that, I think, tells us how we should treat this logical fallacy when we see it. We should thank the person for their concession of defeat, and return to the subject of the post. If you want to be fancy, you might write something like this:
Your comment was an example of Ignoratio Elenchi. Thank you for conceding defeat. Now, back to the subject of the post.
Feel free to borrow that paragraph, if you like.
Posted by Jim Miller at April 24, 2006 09:02 AM | Email This