What Is a Red Herring Fallacy? | Examples & Definition
The red herring fallacy is a form of argumentation that relies on distraction. Red herring arguments present irrelevant information that diverts attention from the main topic of discussion.
Although red herring fallacies may result from faulty reasoning, they are often used purposely, with the intent of confusing or distracting the audience.
What is a red herring fallacy?
Red herrings are a type of informal logical fallacy in which attention is diverted from the main subject to confuse or mislead the audience.
As a rhetorical strategy, red herrings are considered a fallacious, or poorly reasoned, form of argumentation, whether the red herring is introduced in error or with deceptive intent.
The term “red herring” is also the name of a literary device. In mystery novels, a red herring is a misleading clue or character that the author uses to keep readers from guessing the true killer or motive. These literary red herrings are used to set up plot twists and surprise endings.
What is a logical fallacy?
A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that renders an argument invalid or unsound. An argument can be fallacious even if its premises and conclusion are factually correct. A logical fallacy is a type of flaw in an argument’s form or content.
Most logical fallacies can be classified as either formal or informal fallacies.
- A formal fallacy occurs when an argument’s structure breaks the rules of logic, rendering the argument invalid. These fallacies appear in deductive arguments that start with general principles and apply them to specific cases.
- An informal fallacy involves an error in the content of an argument, not its structure. These fallacies are found in inductive arguments that draw general conclusions from specific instances. An argument with an informal fallacy is considered unsound.
All fallacies that rely on diversion, collectively known as fallacies of relevance, can also be considered subcategories of red herring fallacies.
Why do people use red herring fallacies?
When red herring fallacies are used intentionally as a rhetorical technique, their purposes may include the following:
- Avoiding unwanted questions
- Diverting attention from accusations
- Provoking strong emotions
- Confusing the audience
- Controlling the direction of the debate or conversation
Red herring fallacy examples
Red herrings can often be found in political contexts, where they are typically used to deflect criticism, control the direction of a conversation, and evoke strong emotions that can be manipulated to serve an agenda (e.g., fear, anger, or disgust).
Legal arguments are another potential source of red herring fallacies.
Marketing and public relations strategies often use manipulative techniques similar to the red herring fallacy to distract consumers from the mistakes and shortcomings of a brand or celebrity.
The ability to recognize and identify unsound persuasive techniques is a crucial part of critical thinking and media literacy. Understanding fallacies makes us well-informed consumers of news, information, and products.
How to respond to a red herring fallacy
Red herrings are often used to distract from a weakness. To counter a red herring, note exactly when the subject was changed and which topic or question was avoided. Concentrating on the issues that the other party seeks to evade can expose shortcomings and weak arguments.
Frequently asked questions about red herring fallacy
- Why is the red herring fallacy a problem?
-
The red herring fallacy hinders constructive dialogue and prevents meaningful progress in addressing the central issues of a discussion.
The intentional use of red herrings and other fallacies can mislead and manipulate the audience by drawing attention to unrelated topics or emotions, potentially swaying opinions without addressing the substance of the original argument.