In arguments and discussions, it’s crucial to stay focused on the central issue. However, sometimes, a “red herring” appears, diverting attention away from the core argument. So, what exactly is a red herring, and how can you identify it?
A red herring is a logical fallacy where someone introduces an irrelevant topic to distract from the main issue being discussed. It’s a diversionary tactic meant to lead the conversation astray. The new topic might be related tangentially, but it doesn’t address the actual argument.
How Red Herrings Work
The effectiveness of a red herring lies in its ability to appeal to emotions or create a sense of urgency around a different, unrelated topic. By shifting the focus, the person using the red herring hopes to avoid addressing the original issue directly.
Examples of Red Herrings in Action
Here are some examples to illustrate how red herrings are used:
-
Avoiding Salary Concerns:
Son: “Wow, Dad, it’s really hard to make a living on my salary.”
Father: “Consider yourself lucky, son. Why, when I was your age, I only made $40 a week.”
In this scenario, the father avoids addressing his son’s current financial struggles by focusing on his own past experiences, which are not relevant to the son’s present situation.
-
Debating Abortion vs. Gun Control:
Senator Clark: “Why are you not willing to support the antiabortion amendment? Don’t you have any feelings at all for the unborn children whose lives are being indiscriminately blotted out?”
Senator Rich: “I just don’t understand why you people who get so worked up about lives being blotted out by abortion don’t have the same feelings about the thousands of lives that are blotted out every year by the indiscriminate use of handguns. Is not the issue of the sanctity of human life involved in both issues? Why have you not supported us in our efforts at gun-control legislation?”
Senator Rich deflects the question about abortion by bringing up gun control, a related but separate issue. This avoids a direct answer about the antiabortion amendment.
-
Student vs. Professor Concerns:
Student: “The opinions of the students are completely ignored in the process of determining both curricular changes and social programs. The students should have a much greater voice in campus governance, because we have a very great stake in this institution, and we think that we have a positive contribution to make.”
Professor: “The faculty are the ones who need a greater voice. Professors can be fired without explanation, and they have no control over who is promoted or given tenure. Their opinions about budgetary allotments are completely ignored. Why aren’t you concerned about the injustice the faculty is experiencing?”
The professor redirects the conversation from student concerns to faculty concerns, avoiding the student’s argument about student involvement in campus governance.
-
Minimizing Personal Problems:
Daughter: “I’m so hurt that Todd broke up with me, Mom.”
Mother: “Just think of all the starving children in Africa, honey. Your problems will seem pretty insignificant then.”
The mother attempts to diminish her daughter’s heartbreak by comparing it to the suffering of starving children in Africa, a completely different and unrelated issue.
This image represents a mother consoling her daughter, an example of a red herring fallacy when trying to minimize her emotional pain.
-
Shifting Focus from Murder to Victims:
“Ms. Olive has objected to my views on capital punishment by trying to show that the taking of human life, legally or illegally, cannot be ethically justified. But the matter is really simple, isn’t it? Murderers certainly aren’t ethically justified in taking the lives of their victims. Does anyone ever think of the poor victim?”
This argument shifts the focus from the ethics of capital punishment to the wrongfulness of murder, evading the original debate.
-
Justifying Junk Food Purchases:
Andy: “Hey, what’s with all this junk food you bought? You’re always railing at me about eating healthy.”
Aunt Bea: “Don’t fuss — it was on sale.”
Aunt Bea avoids the inconsistency of buying junk food despite advocating for healthy eating by simply stating that it was on sale.
-
Hypothetical Congressional Deaths:
Reporter: “It seems to me that if you were elected president, the Congress with which you would have to work would not be very cooperative at all. How could you, as president, bring about any reform or help enact any beneficial legislation with a Congress that was almost totally opposed to your programs?”
Ross Perot: “Well, if I were elected, about half the members of Congress would drop dead of heart attacks, and half of my problem would be solved from the outset.”
Ross Perot uses a humorous and absurd scenario to avoid addressing the serious question of how he would work with an uncooperative Congress.
-
Comparing Performers:
Jack: “Bob Dylan is the greatest performer of our time.”
Jill: “Well, Dylan is a fine writer, but as a performer, he stinks. I saw a concert of his once and we was singing unintelligibly and looked like he was falling asleep.”
Jack: “Well, Fleetwood Mac, one of your favorite groups, is not so great in concert either.”
Jack deflects criticism of Bob Dylan by attacking Fleetwood Mac, one of Jill’s favorite groups, instead of defending Dylan’s performance abilities.
-
Blaming Government Agencies:
Teresa: “It’s so obvious that an open society will always be vulnerable to terrorist attack, so the question is how much of our free movement we are willing to sacrifice for national security.”
George: “No, the question is how our government agencies could have been so stupid as to ignore all the signs of the impending attack.”
George shifts the focus from the trade-offs between freedom and security to the alleged incompetence of government agencies.
-
Exploiting Youth and Inexperience:
Reporter: “Mr. President, your opponent, Walter Mondale is considerably younger than you. Do you think that with the threat of nuclear war, age should be an issue in this campaign?”
President Reagan: “Not at all. I am not going to exploit my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
President Reagan avoids discussing the potential relevance of age in the context of nuclear war by stating he won’t exploit his opponent’s youth and inexperience.
The image portrays a political debate, where the red herring fallacy can often be observed as politicians attempt to divert attention from difficult questions.
Why are Red Herrings Problematic?
Red herrings are problematic because they:
- Obscure the truth: They prevent a genuine exploration of the original issue.
- Waste time and energy: Discussions become unproductive and go off on tangents.
- Undermine credibility: Using red herrings can make you appear evasive or dishonest.
How to Identify and Counter Red Herrings
- Identify the main issue: Clearly define the topic being discussed.
- Recognize irrelevant diversions: Be alert for topics that are introduced but don’t directly address the main issue.
- Point out the fallacy: Politely but firmly point out that the new topic is irrelevant to the original argument. For example, “That’s an interesting point, but it doesn’t address the question of [original issue].”
- Refocus the conversation: Steer the discussion back to the original issue and ask for a direct response.
Conclusion
Understanding the red herring fallacy is essential for engaging in productive and meaningful conversations. By recognizing this diversionary tactic, you can stay focused on the central issue, avoid being misled, and promote more honest and effective communication. Remember to address the argument directly and not get sidetracked by irrelevant issues.
