19. Red Herring
Wireless Philosophy, Fallacies, 6:02. Original title: Red Herring - Critical Thinking Fallacies | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY
Summary
Joseph Wu (University of Cambridge) explains the red herring, a rhetorical device and fallacy that is often difficult to spot.
A courtroom example
Wu opens with an attorney prosecuting a defendant for murder, who tells the jury: "he murdered the victim not with a gun, not with a knife, but with a chainsaw... this was an awful way for the victim to die." The attorney is supposed to be arguing that the defendant committed murder, but is actually arguing for a different claim: that dying by chainsaw is horrendous. The second claim provides no evidence for the first, yet it distracts the jury with a point that only seems relevant.
What a red herring is
A red herring occurs when something is introduced to an argument that misleads or distracts from the relevant issue.
The term comes from a practice of dragging a strong-smelling red herring across a trail to throw dogs off the scent. Red herrings belong to the wider family of fallacies of relevance: fallacies that arise when a premise, whether true or not, is not adequately related to the conclusion. Wu names appeals to authority and ad hominem arguments as two other common examples. The courtroom red herring is probably intentional: by dwelling on how horrible death by chainsaw is, the attorney hopes the jury will start associating the crime with the defendant instead of questioning whether he actually committed it.
Red herrings in politics and the media
Asked by a reporter how she will improve access to health care, a politician answers by praising a bill that increases cancer research funding, then pivots to foreign policy. Wu reads this as a red herring on several levels: the politician first deflects from health care access to foreign policy; then cites a popular but only loosely related bill, since more cancer research funding does not obviously improve access; and the bill itself may be a red herring at the level of policy, if it fails to address the root issues in health care while still generating debate because it is flashy. A second example: accusing a political rival of being unfit for office because he hates pizza. The claim has nothing to do with political ability, but its absurdity is enough to spark a conversation that distracts from more meaningful issues and gives the accuser more media coverage.
Tangents as a subtler red herring
Wu's last example is a friend defending whisky as the best drink with dinner by talking about a trip to Scotland, the friendliness of the Scots, and a separate trip to France, before circling back to whisky. None of this supports the conclusion. Piling up such tangents, Wu notes, is itself a version of the red herring: it can be used to confuse an opponent or hide the gaps in an argument, making the argument difficult to criticise simply because it is difficult to follow.
Key takeaway
Red herrings take many forms: arguing for the wrong conclusion, responding to the wrong question, making outrageous claims, going on tangents, and giving shallow responses that fail to address the issue actually at stake.