Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes confused with straw man argument. Samuel Johnson's unique 'refutation' of Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism, his claim that matter did not actually exist but only seemed to exist, has been described as ignoratio elenchi: during a conversation with Boswell, Johnson powerfully kicked a nearby stone and proclaimed of Berkeley's theory, 'I refute it thus!' (See also argumentum ad lapidem.)Ī related concept is that of the red herring, which is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject. The question was not if B's neighbor believes that law should allow, but rather if the law does allow it or not. ī: My neighbor John believes that the law should allow you to do that because of this and that.ī missed the point. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close relation with it. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute proof of the original one… It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of forms.

The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it and arguing the substituted issue.

For instance, instead of proving that 'this person has committed an atrocious fraud', you prove that 'this fraud he is accused of is atrocious '' . 'I am required to prove a certain conclusion I prove, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it in that lies the fallacy . Since Aristotle, the scope of the fallacy has been extended to include all cases of proving the wrong point . To refute an assertion, Aristotle says we must prove its contradictory the proof, consequently, of a proposition which stood in any other relation than that to the original, would be an ignoratio elenchi. Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy that arises from 'ignorance of the nature of refutation'. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi. Ignoratio elenchi is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. The irrelevant conclusion should not be confused with formal fallacy, an argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises instead, it is that despite its formal consistency it is not relevant to the subject being talked about. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.

An irrelevant conclusion, also known as ignoratio elenchi ( Latin for 'ignoring refutation') or missing the point, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in question.

Conway red herring fallacy