The Art of Logic · Part 18 · Fallacies: the bridge to rhetoric · B2–C1
Fallacies of Thought II: Missing the Point
Part 18 of The Art of Logic: some arguments prove something, just not the thing in question. They attack a weaker version of the opponent, change the subject, or reach a conclusion that does not follow. Representing a view fairly (what X actually said was…, so you’re saying…?, that’s beside the point), with Philo, Sophia, Marcos and Demetria.
Tonight, the last family of fallacies of thought: arguments that miss the point.
The one being argued about. Aristotle called it ignoratio elenchi, ignorance of what the refutation must prove. Its most famous child is the straw man.
Missing the point (ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion) means proving something other than what was in question. A lawyer who proves that murder is terrible has not proved that his client is guilty of it.
Two modern names describe its commonest forms. The straw man: attacking a weaker or exaggerated version of an opponent’s view, rather than the view itself. The red herring: changing the subject to something that distracts. A non sequitur, “it does not follow”, is any conclusion that simply does not follow from its premises.
Aristotle also lists the fallacy of the consequent: assuming that a conditional or a universal works backwards. If all ripe figs are soft, a soft fig must be ripe? It may be rotten. You met this in Part 14 as affirming the consequent.
Answer what was actually said, not what is easier to answer.
Or try our free games and lessons.