Irrelevant conclusions hold similarity to appeal to the stone because it provides evidence towards a conclusion that has already been formed about the subject matter being debated, instead of the original subject that was being discussed. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s refutation of Bishop Berkeley’s theory of immaterialism by kicking a stone did not actually address the theory, but rather asserted a conclusion incompatible with the theory and then echoed his conclusion without discussing the subject matter of the theory of immaterialism directly.
Irrelevant conclusions share resemblance to appealing to a rock because they offer support for a preconceived conclusion about the topic being discussed, rather than addressing the original subject matter. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s rebuttal of Bishop Berkeley’s immaterialism theory by kicking a stone did not actually engage with the theory but instead presented an opposing conclusion that contradicted it and repeated his stance without directly discussing the core issue of immaterialism.