Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • SPEAKER: Red herring is another well-known fallacy type,

  • but it's easily confused with straw figure.

  • So here, I want to highlight the differences between the two.

  • The name "red herring" comes from an old method of training

  • dogs for fox hunting.

  • The goal is a train the dogs to follow the fox's scent,

  • even if the dogs encounter other smells that

  • are potentially distracting.

  • So what they do is they got the fox go so the fox leaves

  • a scent trail.

  • Then before letting the dogs go, they

  • drag a bunch of smelly red herrings

  • across the fox's trail, like this.

  • Then they release the dogs.

  • When the dogs hit the herring trail,

  • they'll be distracted by the smell,

  • and some will be inclined to follow

  • the herring trail instead.

  • So the trainers try to get the dogs to stay on the fox trail

  • and resist the urge to follow the herring.

  • So what's what with this metaphor?

  • Well, the fox is some argument-- the original argument

  • that is at issue in a debate.

  • The dog can represent anyone who is interested and engaged

  • in this argument.

  • The red herring is something that

  • distracts you from following the trail of the original argument.

  • It might be a new and different argument

  • that raises a different issue or simply

  • an irrelevant comment that distracts from the main issue.

  • What's important is that it's distracting enough

  • to make the audience want to follow this new trail away

  • from the original argument and the main issue.

  • So putting all this together, you commit the red herring

  • fallacy when in an argument you divert attention

  • away from the main issue or the main line of argumentation

  • by introducing something that changes the subject, that

  • raises a new issue that isn't relevant to the proceeding

  • line of discussion.

  • The fallacy really occurs when you then conclude something

  • from this different issue or presume

  • that some conclusion has been established

  • and use this to claim that you've won the argument

  • or said something relevant about the original argument.

  • In this respect, the fallacy is very much like a straw figure

  • fallacy in that you are mistakenly or misleadingly

  • saying that you've won an argument

  • or refuted an argument when all that you've really done

  • is avoid engaging the original argument.

  • But it's different from the straw figure fallacy

  • in that a straw figure involves distorting or misrepresenting

  • some original argument and then knocking down the distorted

  • argument.

  • In a red herring, the arguer ignores the opponent's argument

  • and subtly changes the subject.

  • So to distinguish between the two,

  • you need to ask yourself whether the arguer has knocked down

  • a distorted argument or simply changed the subject.

  • Here is a summary of the points just made.

  • To illustrate the difference, consider this.

  • I overheard my friend John argue that the Bible has

  • errors in it.

  • Funny, I never figured him for an atheist.

  • This is a straw figure, not a red herring

  • since the conclusion being drawn is related to the main argument

  • that his friend is making about the Bible.

  • But it's clearly working off of a distorted or exaggerated

  • version of it if it equates Biblical fallibilism

  • with atheism.

  • Now compare that to this one.

  • My opponent has argued that there's an urgent need

  • to reduce greenhouse gases in order

  • to minimize global warming.

  • But the most serious problem facing future generations

  • is the risk posed by nuclear weapons in the hands

  • of rogue states and terrorists.

  • This is where we need to focus our attention and resources.

  • This is a red herring.

  • The original issue was about greenhouse gases

  • and the urgency of global warming.

  • This response sidesteps that issue

  • and introduces a new issue.

  • To avoid committing a red herring,

  • the arguer would need to show the global warming isn't

  • an urgent problem or that reducing greenhouse gas

  • emissions won't be effective in reducing it--

  • or something like that.

  • Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists

  • is certainly a serious issue, but that fact

  • is nothing to undermine the original argument

  • about global warming.

SPEAKER: Red herring is another well-known fallacy type,

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it