Skip to main content

Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance are informal fallacies in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion or insufficient to support it.

1. Ad Hominem (Against the Person)​

In the ad hominem fallacy, the person is attacked instead of engaging with their arguments.

Example: "Dr. Schmidt argues for stricter environmental protection measures, but he himself drives an SUV. His arguments should therefore be ignored."

Why is this flawed? Dr. Schmidt's personal characteristics or actions have nothing to do with the validity of his arguments. Even if he acts inconsistently, his arguments could still be sound.

Variants:

  • Circumstantial Ad Hominem: "You only argue that way because you would benefit from it."
  • Tu Quoque (You too): "You criticise me for X, but you do X yourself."
  • Guilt by Association: "You share this opinion with group Y, and group Y is bad."

2. Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the Majority)​

This fallacy claims that something must be true or right because many people believe it.

Example: "Most people in our country believe that the death penalty has a deterrent effect. So it must actually have a deterrent effect."

Why is this flawed? The number of people who believe something has no bearing on the actual truth. History is full of examples in which the majority was wrong.

3. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority)​

This fallacy invokes the opinion of an authority to support an argument without providing any further evidence.

Example: "Professor Dr. Müller, a renowned physicist, believes in astrology. So astrology must be scientifically sound."

Why is this flawed? Even experts can be wrong or biased in areas outside their expertise. Moreover, the opinion of an authority does not replace the need for evidence and arguments.

Note: Not every reference to experts is a fallacy. Referring to relevant expertise can be a legitimate part of an argument, but it should not be the only argument.

4. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)​

This fallacy tries to persuade by arousing pity or other emotions instead of providing factual arguments.

Example: "The defendant should not be convicted. He has three small children who would have to grow up without him."

Why is this flawed? The defendant's family situation has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. Emotional appeals may be relevant in sentencing, but they should not influence the establishment of the facts.

5. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force or Fear)​

This fallacy tries to persuade by threatening negative consequences.

Example: "If we do not relax the environmental protection laws, thousands of jobs will be lost and the economy will collapse."

Why is this flawed? Instead of discussing the pros and cons of the environmental protection laws on their merits, the argument appeals to fear. The alleged negative consequences would also have to be proven.

6. Straw Man Argument​

In the straw man argument, the opponent's position is distorted or oversimplified so that it can be attacked more easily.

Example: Person A: "We should invest more in education." Person B: "So you want us to spend our entire budget on schools and have nothing left for health care and infrastructure? That is irresponsible!"

Why is this flawed? Person B has distorted Person A's position. "Investing more in education" does not mean spending the entire budget on it. This distortion sets up a "straw man" that is easy to refute.

7. Red Herring​

This fallacy distracts from the actual question or argument by introducing an irrelevant topic.

Example: "You criticise our party's tax policy, but have you seen how badly the opposition handles the education system?"

Why is this flawed? Instead of addressing the criticism of the tax policy, a completely different topic (education policy) is introduced in order to distract.