Lecture 6

Fallacies of Irrelevance

W hen we disagree with others, the process is not merely logical,

but emotional. When someone thinks that we are wrong about
something, we feel attacked and often feel justified in attacking in
return. As you will learn in this lecture, the fallacies of irrelevance
frequently occur when our emotions lead us to focus on some aspect
of the disagreement other than the actual disagreement. We have to
make sure that we are on guard at all times to avoid committing—and
getting sidetracked by—these diversionary fallacies.

Fallacies of Irrelevance
⊲⊲ One of the most difficult aspects of engaging in passionate
discourse is keeping the discussion focused on the question
at hand. When someone is disagreeing with us, especially
if it involves a proposition we take to be important, we can
feel attacked.

⊲⊲ The result is that the fight-or-flight portion of the brain becomes

engaged, and this can overtake the functioning of the part of the
brain associated with our rational faculties. We feel that we have
to defend ourselves through any means possible, not necessarily
the ones that will lead to open-minded consideration.

⊲⊲ The outcome is often logically unfortunate. Frequently, the

conversation gets hijacked by irrelevant appeals that cause the
discussion to veer off in directions that do not serve the central
point, but serve only to obscure it.
Ad Hominem
⊲⊲ One of the most common diversionary fallacies is where instead
of attacking the argument, we instead focus on attacking the
arguer. This fallacy is known by its Latin name, “ad hominem,”
which translates as “to the man.” The idea is that we are focused
on the person instead of the case the person is making.

⊲⊲ Arguments are acceptable if they are sound—that is, if their form

is valid and their premises are well-grounded. If an argument is
valid and has true premises, then that is true regardless of whose
mouth it comes out of.

⊲⊲ Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Whose mouth it

comes out of is irrelevant. The argument is valid because of its
logical structure and is well-grounded because of the truth of its
premises. The identity, background, or motivation of the speaker
has nothing to do with the satisfaction of either criterion.

⊲⊲ To argue that we should not accept—or, indeed, even consider—

the argument because of the source of the argument is to commit
an ad hominem fallacy.

⊲⊲ Ad hominem attacks tend to come in three general categories.

The first is the “you’re a jerk” version. There are horrible, immoral
people in this world who do nothing to make the world a better
place and who often serve their own petty desires at the cost of
the well-being of others. But if that person makes an argument,
we need to analyze it objectively. We need to evaluate the validity
of the argument and assess the likelihood of the premises’ truth.

⊲⊲ The second version is a form of guilt by association where we

discount an argument not for objective reasons, but because the
person offering it belongs to some identifiable group. Don’t listen
to her; she’s a feminist. You can’t take his argument seriously;
he’s a conservative.

48 An Introduction to Formal Logic

⊲⊲ A common variation of this kind is to point out that the speaker
is not among those who follow the advice the speaker is giving.
Known by its Latin name, “tu quoque,” the “but you do it, too”
objection is just an illegitimate ad hominem attack. It might be
true that the person telling you not to drink is an alcoholic, but
that doesn’t mean it is not good advice.

⊲⊲ The third class of ad hominem attacks is where we focus on the

motivations of the speaker. “Of course, you’d say that. You stand
to profit if it’s true.” Again, maybe that is correct, or maybe it isn’t,
but the argument stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of
who, where, when, or why the argument is made.

Attacking a Straw Man

⊲⊲ Another diversionary tactic that we must be on guard against
is called attacking a straw man. The strange name comes from
the fact that it is easier to beat the stuffing out of a scarecrow
than it is to take on an actual human being. It is a metaphor for
arguments that do not address the actual argument made but
rather a weaker, easier-to-refute version.

⊲⊲ Logicians have something called the principle of charity,

according to which, when one analyzes an argument, one must
assess the strongest-possible version of that argument. To defeat
a weak version does nothing in terms of demonstrating the given
argument to be unsound. It can only be rejected as not providing
legitimate grounds for rational belief in its conclusion if the
strongest version, the best understanding, is seen to be flawed.

⊲⊲ Think of prize fighting. If a particular boxer is the reigning

champion, then he or she has to take on all challengers. One
cannot keep the title of heavyweight champion of the world and
fight only, for example, 12 year olds. While there are surely some
tough preteens out there, the point of being the champion of the

Lecture 6—Fallacies of Irrelevance 49

 world is that you are the top of the top—that you can defeat the
toughest competition anywhere.

⊲⊲ It is the same thing with argumentation. If we are to refute an

argument—find a flaw in it that leads us to reject it as providing
good reason to believe—then, like the heavyweight champion of
the world, we as critical thinkers need to take on the strongest
version of the argument. To take on a weaker version and then
assert that we have done anything is to attack a straw man.

⊲⊲ There are two main varieties of attacking a straw man. One

version is to alter the scope of the premises offered, making
them broader or narrower than the ones offered to weaken the
argument while keeping the rest of the premises intact. The hint
that this is what you are hearing is the phrase “Oh, so what you
are saying is….”

⊲⊲ The other kind of straw man argument is more radical. It is where

the interlocutor replaces all of the premises wholesale. When you
hear the phrase “the real reason…,” you are likely looking at a
straw man argument.

⊲⊲ Why would someone say “the real reason”? Because what

they are doing is replacing the original reasons—that is, the
premises—with new premises, and odds are that these new
premises are going to be a whole lot easier to undermine. But in
undermining them, the interlocutor has done nothing with regard
to the soundness of the original argument, because the original
argument is gone.

Red Herring
⊲⊲ Where attacking a straw man is the error wherein we replace
the premises of an offered argument, the fallacy known as a red
herring is where we change the conclusion.

50 An Introduction to Formal Logic

⊲⊲ When we replace premises with those that are easier to attack
but maintain the conclusion, we are still talking about the same
thing, only talking about it differently. But when we change the
conclusion, we are completely changing the topic of conversation.
That is a red herring—the ultimate in argumentative diversion.

⊲⊲ Anyone who has ever been in a serious interpersonal relationship

knows all about red herrings.

¹¹ “You really need to clean those dishes in the sink. You make
yourself a snack and just clutter the kitchen and leave it for me.
That is not respectful or fair to me.”
¹¹ “Well, if you want to talk about messes and respect, what
about the fact that you never pick up your dirty clothes in the
bathroom? You just throw them on the floor before you get in
the shower and leave them there.”

⊲⊲ This began as a discussion about dishes. The first partner made

the following argument.

¹¹ One should clean up one’s own messes, because not to do so

is disrespectful and unfair.
¹¹ The dishes in the sink are your mess that is not cleaned up.
¹¹ Therefore, you should do those dishes out of respect and
fairness.

⊲⊲ That seems like a sound argument. The conclusion follows from

premises that certainly seem to be true. How does the other
partner respond to this argument? Not by showing that the
argument is flawed, but by giving a new argument.

¹¹ One should clean up one’s own messes, because not to do so

is disrespectful and unfair.
¹¹ The clothes on the bathroom floor are your mess that is not
cleaned up.

Lecture 6—Fallacies of Irrelevance 51

 ¹¹ Therefore, you should pick up the clothes on the bathroom
floor out of respect and fairness.

⊲⊲ Notice that while the form of these two arguments is the same
and there is some overlap in content, the conclusions are different
propositions—that is, they are completely different arguments.
Both are worth assessing, but they need to be considered one
at a time.

⊲⊲ What we have here is a combination of a red herring and tu

quoque. Well, you do it, too, or something so much like it that you
can’t criticize me for doing what you do.

⊲⊲ If I do it, then I should be criticized and I should change my ways,

but that is a different question from what we are talking about,
which is the stack of dirty dishes in the sink.

⊲⊲ The thing about people is that while we certainly have trainable

rational capabilities, we are also bundles of insecurities and
dedicated to agendas of our own which we take to be crucially
important. Arguments between two people in a relationship can
display insecurities.

⊲⊲ Agenda-based red herrings are often seen in political

discussions. Consider a conversation like the following.

¹¹ “Your gun control proposal is an affront to gun owner rights.

We are talking about liberty being seized by an overinvasive
government here.”
¹¹ “Oh, that’s funny coming from the person who proposed such
draconian abortion regulations. If you want to talk about rights
and liberty being stripped by an overinvasive government,
there is example A.”

⊲⊲ Notice what happened. We started with a conversation about

the political benefits and flaws of a proposed piece of legislation

52 An Introduction to Formal Logic

 about firearms, and instead of evaluating the argument, we shifted
to a completely different topic: the permissibility of abortion.

⊲⊲ Both are important issues. We should give both careful, thoughtful

attention. But we need to do so one at a time. “I understand that
abortion rights is an important issue to you, and we will give it our
due attention, but right now we are talking about gun control.”

⊲⊲ When there is an issue that is important to us, we will often see

traces of it everywhere. Just because something reminds you of
a topic you want to discuss doesn’t mean that we cannot first
finish the discussion we have started.

Readings

Copi, Introduction to Logic, chap. 3.

Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, chap. 9.
Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, chap. 4.

Questions

Identify the fallacies in the following passages from the following list:
ad hominem, tu quoque, attacking a straw man, red herring.

1.
 on’t listen to him. He can’t even speak proper English, so you know
D
his argument is also nonsense.

2.
You say that the changes to the tax code would promote fairness, but
the real reason you are in favor of it is that you want to punish the rich.

Lecture 6—Fallacies of Irrelevance 53

3.
You say that we need to help the homeless, but what about the
working poor who have a place to live? Do you think we should just
ignore them?

4.
You know that famous celebrity who is always going on and on about
the need to care about the environment and leave a small carbon
footprint? It turns out that she has a mansion, and you know that
thing uses a ton of electricity in the summer when she runs the air
conditioner. So, if she can use a lot of power, so can I.

54 An Introduction to Formal Logic