Red herring (fallacy)
A red herring, also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin: ignorance of refutation) or irrelevant thesis, is a logical fallacy where an irrelevant topic is introduced to divert the attention away from the topic that's being discussed, or an argument where the premises are not logically connected to the conclusion. It's commonly referred to as "changing the subject."
Examples
- "The premier's tax policies may be popular, but I suspect he had an affair and is paying the woman to keep quiet. The media should investigate that!"
- "We have to develop a new system to manage quality of service aspects of a service. We should use XML because it solves a lot of problems."
Subfallacies
Subtypes of the red herring include:
- ad hominem
- appeal to emotion
- appeal to consequences
- bandwagon fallacy
- genetic fallacy
- guilt by association
- trivial objections
- straw man
- two wrongs make a right
- wishful thinking
A satirical type of red herring is the "Chewbacca Defense". This term is sometimes used in Internet discussion forums.
Origin
The phrase red herring is thought to have originated from the use of smoked herring fish to distract dogs following a scent trail. The herring's strong smell could obscure the real trail and lay a false one.
External links
- About.com: Fallacies of relevance (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_relevance.htm)
- Nizkor Project: Red Herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)
- Fallacy Files: Red Herring (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html)
- The Art of Controversy: Diversion (http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist29.htm) (bilingual with the original German) by Arthur Schopenhauer
de:Red Herring