In effect, Aristotle defines this as 'not knowing what a valid argument is,' and he argues (in his On Sophistical Refutations) that all fallacies can be reduced to this one fallacy. The phrase is a translation of Aristotle's phrase tou elenkhou agnoia.

'Elenchi' is the genitive singular of 'elenchos', 'refutation'. It means 'ignorance of what a refutation is' ('ignoratio' means 'ignorance': it is in the nominative case and cannot mean 'by ignoring').

contribs) 02:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Reply ĭespite the fact that it's in widespread circulation, 'ignoratio elenchi' does not mean 'by ignoring the issues' in Latin.

Preceding unsigned comment added by Aars Hond ( talk Even though his argument is valid, his conclusion does not follow the point he is trying to prove. The conclusion 'HIV can be found in animals' does not prove that HIV can be found in giraffes, specifically. Secunda's conclusion does not refute prima's point at all. It is therefore clear that HIV can be found in animals. The first cases of HIV have been traced back to monkeys in Africa. Secunda: Well, recent studies have shown (insert percentage) of humanity to be suffering from HIV. Prima: My point is, HIV can not be found in giraffes. I think example 1 should look more like this: The actual idea behind ignoratio elenchi is that statement 1 is not a premise of an argument, but the conclusion of a hereby unseen argument, which would fail to support statement 2, which is the point it is trying to prove. Statement 2: it can therefore be found in other animals.

Statement 1: HIV can be found in the human population 'Because HIV can be found in the human population, it should be found in other animals as well.' It looks like the premise of this one argument is These examples more illustrate a faulty argument. The argument itself, in the instance of this fallacy, may be completely valid.

These are the current examples given of Ignoratio elenchi.Now since I'm new, I suppose I should bring this up on the talk page From what I have gathered both on this page and off of other websites, the ignoratio elenchi means that you give an argument with a conclusion that is not relevant to the point you are trying to prove. John.Conway 01:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Reply While very strictly speaking it may qualify (I'm not even sure it does) it doesn't with this wording, and hardy illustrates the fallacy clearly. What he fails to answer, however, is that homosexuality and sodomy are not immoral activities.'' He responded that 'the government has no business in the bedrooms of it's people.' 'This is true, because the Canadian government is in fact not in anybody's bedroom. 'When Ex- Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau legalized homosexuality and sodomy, many opponents asked why he considered these activities tolerable.

Conway red herring fallacy