Relevance is the quality of something (a fact or a few words) when it connects with a general situation. It is relevant if a specific proposal is related to the subject being discussed. On the contrary, a proposal is not relevant if it is not related to the general context.
In the development of a trial there is evidence that is valid, useful and linked to the motive of the case. On the other hand, the judges dismiss some evidence because they consider that it is not pertinent and has no validity, since it violates the legal norms that must be fulfilled in a trial.
To affirm that an action has relevance is to accept it, initially, as appropriate and correct. The idea of relevance implies adequacy with the facts. There is a connection between the particular and the general.
To consider that an opinion has relevance is to recognize that it has validity, since it has some suitable characteristic. Thus, something can be relevant because it fits well with a situation and, at the same time, not be supported by other people. Suppose a person is in a neighborhood meeting to propose ideas to improve the cleanliness of the community. This individual proposes a new cleaning schedule. Your input is totally relevant. Then the neighbors vote and reject the idea of the time change. This example shows that relevance is simply a formal requirement. It is an idea, proposal or test that fulfills a necessary condition: it is consistent with the moment and the subject being addressed.
If someone says something inappropriate and inappropriate, they can be considered impertinent. Impertinence is provocative, rude and respectful behavior.
Relevance and impertinence would be synonyms for valid and invalid, respectively. We need to understand each other in our communication and it is necessary to establish certain rules for the understanding to be effective. In some social contexts (meetings, trials, debates ...) it is necessary to establish a procedure for action. It is a way to avoid disorder in participation. In these contexts there are often responsible people who oversee compliance with the rules. They are the ones who determine what is relevant and what is not. They act as arbitrators so that the corresponding regulation is respected in the development of an act.
