SESSION 03B

Relevance

Dr. Steve Pham

Senior Lecturer in Leadership, Entrepreneurship,
Innovation, International Business/Strategy, Strategic HRM
1
1
Session Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you should be
able to:
• articulate what exactly relevance is;
• explain the many ways of being irrelevant or
errors of relevance
• recognize when something is irrelevant e.g.,
inappropriate standard, going off-topic.

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 2

 “The universe is what it is, not what I choose
that it should be.”
Bertrand Russell,

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 3

 What Is Relevance?

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 4

What Is Relevance?
Relevance (of the premises to the conclusion) is one of the criteria for
good arguments.
• relevance is a relational thing: a statement is relevant if it is important to
something else, namely the proposed conclusion;
• to be relevant, the truth of the premise must make a difference—to the
merit of the claim in question (that is, to the conclusion).

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 5

What Is Relevance?
Relevance (of the premises to the conclusion) is one of the criteria for
good arguments.
• relevance is a relational thing: a statement is relevant if it is important to
something else, namely the proposed conclusion;
• to be relevant, the truth of the premise must make a difference—to the
merit of the claim in question (that is, to the conclusion).
• understanding the relevance depends on understanding, first, what the
argument is (the issue in contention, the premises, the conclusions).

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 6

#Consider the relevance in these arguments:
• We should not hire the candidate we just interviewed. We need
a good computer programmer. That guy had a ring in his nose
for crying out loud!
• We should not hire the candidate we just interviewed. We need
a good computer programmer. The application form he filled out
online has two mistakes in it!

7
7
 Errors of Relevance

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 8

Errors of Relevance
Errors of relevance: considering the source instead of the argument is
an error because the source of an argument is irrelevant to the merit of
the argument–whether an argument is good or bad depends solely on the
truth, relevance, and sufficiency of the premises.
• error #1: appeal to the person; and
• error #2: genetic fallacy

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 9

Errors of Relevance
error #1: appeal to the person or ad hominem (Latin) error involves
directing your comments toward the person making the argument, rather
than toward the argument itself.
• it’s considered an error because who presents the argument is
irrelevant to the strength or weakness of the argument.
• it’s generally an error made while responding to an argument,
rather than while making an argument.

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 10

Errors of Relevance
error #1: appeal to the person or ad hominem (Latin) errors:
• appeals to the person’s character;
• appeals to the person’s practices (“you too” or “tu quoque” in Latin); and
• appeals to the person’s interests (this fallacy has also been called
“poisoning the well”, suggesting that everything that person says is
contaminated by their interests).

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 11

#Consider the errors of relevance in these cases:
Tait: I heard the other day on a radio call-in show, someone said
that the insanity defense should be abolished. The real issue is
not whether or not someone is insane but whether or not they
know what they’re doing.
Violen: People who call in to radio shows are such low-lifes. Why
aren’t they out working in the middle of the afternoon?

12
12
#Consider the errors of relevance in these cases:
Developer: We can change our environment, whereas rocks and
trees can’t. That’s why I count more than a rock or a tree. And
that’s why I have the right to develop a mine or harvest a forest.
Environmentalist: Yeah, but you’re a selfish sleazeball.

13
13
#Consider the errors of relevance in these cases:
Chang: McDonald’s has great food! It’s cheap, and fast, and
really all those accusations about nutrition, well, you can always
order a salad.
Carnegie: You’re just saying that because you work there!

14
14
#GROUP DISCUSSION
4.1a Practice identifying irrelevant premises (p. 111-112)
4.2 Practice recognizing appeals to the person (p. 115-118)

15
15
Errors of Relevance
error #2: genetic fallacy that considers the source of the argument rather
than the argument itself–because the quality of the argument for an idea or
practice depends solely on the evidence and reasoning that make up the
argument instead of how or when an idea or practice came about.
• it is an error made while responding to an argument rather than
while making an argument;
• it refers not to an individual person, but to a whole history of origin
(genesis): reference is usually made to a historical context;
• this error is made because of our tendency to associate things; when
things appear to us together, we assume some sort of association
between them.

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 16

#Consider the errors of relevance in these cases:
• There is no way we should support eugenics! That idea was
advocated by the Nazis in Hitler’s Germany, don’t forget!
• Competition should be discouraged in all its forms. We must
remember it is both the fruit and seed of patriarchy!

17
17
 Other Errors of Relevance:
Appealing to An Inappropriate
Standard

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 18

Other Errors of Relevance
Errors of relevance: appealing to an inappropriate standard–these are
errors of relevance because, in each case, that other standard or
judgment to which you have appealed is irrelevant.
• appeal to inappropriate authority;
• appeal to tradition or past practice;
• appeal to custom, habit, or common practice;
• appeal to moderation (“lack of” or “fallacy of the golden mean”);
• appeal to popularity (“lack of”, appeal to the majority or bandwagon
fallacy, and appeal to the minority, appeal to the authority of the elite); and
• “two wrongs” (involves appealing to some standard or judgment other
than your own, specifically some inappropriate standard).

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 19

#Consider the errors of relevance in these cases:
“I appreciate your advice to stick to the issues, but my competitor
is engaged in a smear campaign against me, going to the media
to publicize personal transgressions that are, admittedly, moral
transgressions, but are, I maintain, irrelevant to my political
competence. So, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for me to engage
in a similar campaign.”

20
20
#Consider the errors of relevance in these cases:
Forst: Hey, you just cut off that other car!
Luzzaro: Yeah, well he cut me off first!

21
21
 Other Errors of Relevance:
Going Off-Topic

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 22

Other Errors of Relevance
Errors of relevance: going off-topic–the errors may be committed as
intentional diversionary tactics, or they may simply reveal the respondent’s
inability to stay on the issue or make comments that are irrelevant.
• paper tiger or the “straw man fallacy” (involves responding to an argument
that is not the argument that was presented);
• red herring or a distraction (indicates an inability or an unwillingness on the
part of the respondent to engage in the argument at issue);
• non sequitur or “it doesn’t follow”; and
• appeal to emotion (simply expresses an emotional reaction to a claim, it
doesn’t provide support for the claim; it’s thus irrelevant to the claim).

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 23

#Consider the errors of relevance in these cases:
MacNeil: Could I have next Wednesday off to celebrate my
divorce? I understand it’s company policy to allow wedding leave,
so I figure it should also be policy to allow divorce leave.
MacDonaugh: Of course not! The company can’t afford to give
employees a day off whenever they request one!

24
24
 CRITICAL THINKING IN SOCIAL SCIENCES

Assessments Guide

Dr. Steve Pham

Senior Lecturer in Leadership, Entrepreneurship,
Innovation, International Business/Strategy, Strategic HRM
25
25
Summary
• In order for an argument to be considered a good argument, its
premises must be relevant to its conclusion.
• Errors of relevance can involve considering the source of the argument
instead of the argument itself, appealing to an inappropriate authority,
or going off-topic.

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 26

 SESSION 04A

Language

Dr. Steve Pham

Senior Lecturer in Leadership, Entrepreneurship,
Innovation, International Business/Strategy, Strategic HRM
27
27
 Activity–Thinking critically about what you see

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 28

 Activity–Thinking critically about what you hear
Listen to the audio clip under the Student Resources tab on the companion
website at www.routledge.com/textbooks/tittle.
Any response?

Activity–Thinking critically about what you write

Below you will find an outline for an argument. Present the argument in a clear
and coherent paragraph using complete and connected sentences. Note that the
outline includes the anticipation of an objection and a reply to that objection.
(pages 163 of the core textbook).

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 29

 Activity–Thinking critically about what you read
Think critically about each of the following, focusing, first, on the first two steps in the
template. At this point, you should be able to extract the outline for each argument:
indicate, perhaps with some sort of diagram, the individual premises and conclusions,
and their relationship to each other. Then, as per this chapter, check the reasons and
evidence for relevance, part of the fourth step. And, again, if you can think of what would
strengthen or weaken the argument, say so! (pages 157-158 of the core textbook).

Activity–Thinking critically when you discuss

Again, meet in groups of three, one person initiating the discussion with an argument,
and the other two people taking turns responding to that argument. Choose from the
same repertoire of responses as you used last time, but since we’ve just covered all
those errors of relevance, be particularly attentive to the relevance of the premises as per
response 2(ii): (pages 164-165 of the core textbook).

Critical Thinking in Social Sciences – Dr. Steve Pham 30