We here at The Filthy Papist Blog have been trying to get on a better publishing schedule, and we are aiming to regularly post an article every Friday. However, with several draft articles in the docket but none even remotely ready to publish, we figured that today would be a good day to try a one-off piece over a logical fallacy this author noticed in a discussion on TimcastIRL last week.
The fallacy was Ignoratio elenchi, also called "irrelevant conclusion" or, more bluntly, "missing the point." Broadly speaking, it is a fallacy where someone's argument, whether valid/sound or not, fails to address the point made by the other person. Rather, the person argues something tenuously related to the argument without addressing it, and thereby "misses the point". Here's an example of this fallacy:
A: The gold standard is a better system than our current use of fiat currency because gold's value is less likely to change and therefore less likely to lead to recessions due to inflation.
B: But we're not in a recession right now, so the gold standard is unnecessary.
In this example, B misses the point because A is not arguing whether or not the gold standard would help end a recession that may or may not be occurring, but simply that the gold standard is preventative of recessions in general. B is not arguing against A's point, but against a loosely-related point that A has not actually made. It is important to note that this is not the "straw man" fallacy because a straw man involves setting up a caricature of the original argument.
One of the common ways in which many people commit this fallacy is by attempting to argue against an example or hypothetical that a person has given in support of his argument. This is exactly what happened on TimcastIRL when host, Tim Pool, and Seamus Coghlin of Freedom Toons debated Lance of The Serfs on the topic of late-term abortion:
In the relevant section, Lance was asked whether or not a pregnant mother should be allowed to smoke meth while nine months pregnant. After responding "no," because it would kill a human life, he quickly moved to refute the hypothetical, and said that meth is illegal anyways so it's irrelevant. This is textbook missing the point. The issue is not whether or not meth is legal, but whether or not the infant inside the mother's womb is a human life. This example also shows the effectiveness of employing this fallacy: after Lance uses it, Tim immediately moves to debate whether or not meth is, in fact, legal in some parts of the US. In doing so, he let Lance right off the hook.
It is important when having a debate or a discussion with someone employing this fallacy to know how to respond effectively. The one thing that no one should ever do, no matter what fallacy the person is using, is to point out that he is using a fallacy. First and foremost, this makes the refutation look like sophistry. There is nothing more irritating than the stereotypical "umm AKCSHULLY" retort that one might see in a YouTube comment section. Those "Logically Fallacy Referee" memes might have been funny in sophomore debate class, but they're insufferable in the real world.
Secondly, it can be very difficult at times to point out correctly which fallacy a person is employing, especially if you're in the heat of the debate. As was stated above, Missing the Point and Straw Man look very similar, and might be mistaken for each other at first glance. One risks looking foolish and sophomoric if he tries to point out the fallacy and gets it wrong.
Finally, one runs the risk of committing a logical fallacy in pointing out that the other person is committing a logical fallacy. There is a fun little logical fallacy which is named the "Fallacy Fallacy," which is simply the argument that "the other person used a logical fallacy, therefore his entire argument is false." Once again, nothing would be more embarrassing to point out someone's faulty logic, only to immediately use faulty logic afterward.
How then should someone respond to Missing the Point? Notice that, after Lance says that meth is illegal, Coughlin responds quickly by saying "Maybe it's alcohol, then." Rather than get caught in the weeds, as Pool does, Caughlin aimed to keep the conversation on the topic at hand and not get dragged away to a different topic that Lance was more willing to argue. The point is that one should not be hyper-focused on the fallacy, but should hold the other person to the argument instead. The goal behind missing the point is to change the topic to an easier issue, so don't let the other person change the subject.
What if the situation is more like the gold standard example? In that scenario, person A should clarify his stance by saying, "B, I'm not saying we're in a recession. I'm saying that, generally speaking, the gold standard prevents recessions," and he should continue to hold B to the initial argument. The key to overcoming this fallacy is to not abandon the argument at hand by getting distracted.
It is helpful to know these types of faulty arguments because ignorance of them could lead to falling prey to them. Pointing them out does little to no good because it opens one up to major mistakes and to employing erroneous false-logic. Instead, one should know these pseudo-arguments in order to know how to make a swift end of them and move on to better arguments. Hopefully, this piece will be the first in a recurring series of articles on logical fallacies.
Comments