Fallacies: Red Herring

0:00[Intro music] Hello, my name is Joseph Wu, and I'm a graduate student at Cambridge. In this video, I'll explain the red herring, a rhetorical device and fallacy that is often difficult to spot. Let's begin with an example from law. Imagine an attorney prosecuting a person for murder.

0:23The attorney stands up before the jury and says this: The defendant today is guilty of a horrendous crime. 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. Is this a good argument? Given the tools of logic we've learned from Wi-Phi, not really.

0:44The attorney is supposed to be arguing for the claim: The defendant committed murder. But the attorney appears to be arguing for a slightly different claim: Being killed with a chainsaw is an awful way to die. Notice, however, that the second claim does not provide evidence for the first.

1:02It doesn't follow from the fact that death by chainsaw is horrible that the defendant actually committed the murder. In this scenario, the attorney has used a red herring, since she's distracted the jury with a point that seems relevant but actually is not. A red herring occurs when something is introduced to an argument that misleads or distracts from the relevant issue.

1:24The term originates from a past practice that involved dragging a strong-smelling red herring across one's trail to throw dogs off the scent. Similarly, people often introduce irrelevant details into an argument to divert attention from the real issue at hand.

1:41The red herring falls under the broader category of fallacies of relevance. These are fallacies that arise when a premise, whether true or not, is not adequately related to the conclusion. Two other common fallacies of relevance are appeals to authority and ad hominem arguments.

1:59Of course, the attorney probably intentionally introduced the red herring in her statement. The attorney may be trying to establish a link in the jury's mind between these two seemingly related claims. Once the jury reflects on how horrible it would be to be killed with a chainsaw, they might begin associating the crime with the defendant, instead of questioning the attorney's assumption that the defendant actually committed the crime.

2:24So while some red herrings are accidental, often they are intentional. This is especially true in politics. Suppose a reporter asks a politician this: How will you improve access to healthcare? And the politician responds: It's a tough issue. Many good things are happening in healthcare now, like the recent bill that increases cancer research funding.

2:46It's like our foreign policy. I'm making good things happen there too. This is a classic red herring on many levels. First, the politician deflects the issue of healthcare access to foreign policy, hoping to shift the attention to another subject. Second, the politician points to the recent bill that increases cancer research funding.

3:08Though related to healthcare, it's unclear how more cancer research funding is relevant to healthcare access— these are two separate issues. The tactic here is to divert attention to a seemingly related subject everyone can agree upon. Since presumably everyone thinks more cancer research funding is good, the politician can deflect attention to this agreement and avoid the more controversial question on healthcare access.

3:34Finally, the bill to increase cancer research funding may itself be a red herring if it fails to address the root issues in healthcare. Often, policies generate vigorous debate because they are flashy or controversial, but ultimately distract from meaningful reform.

3:51Consider another example of how red herrings can be used to manipulate the media. One way to do this is to make outlandish statements that make good stories. Suppose, for instance, you accuse your political rival of being unfit for office because he hates pizza.

4:07Clearly, one's dislike of pizza is irrelevant to one's political abilities, but the absurdity of the claim is enough to spark a conversation that ultimately distracts from more meaningful issues. This can be a very powerful strategy: If the media spotlight is on the ridiculous pizza claim, this gives yourself more coverage and it prevents your opponent from controlling the conversation.

4:31Here's one last example. Suppose you are debating the best drink to have with dinner, and your friend argues this: Look, whisky is amazing. It's delicious. I once traveled to Scotland, which is a gorgeous country and they just have the nicest people there. It was a great time.

4:47And even when I traveled to France, the wine was delicious, but I'd still rather have whiskey with dinner. There is not much here that supports the conclusion that whiskey is the best drink with dinner. In fact, the passage is full of tangents that make it hard to follow the argument.

5:04This maneuver is a version of the red herring in which unnecessary details are included, often to confuse opponents or hide gaping holes in an argument. As a result, it becomes extremely difficult to criticize the argument when it is so difficult to identify. To sum, red herrings can take a number of different forms, such as arguing for the wrong conclusion, responding to the wrong question, making outrageous claims, going on tangents, and offering shallow responses that fail to address the issues at stake.

5:36Have you heard of a red herring recently? If so, please share it below! Thanks for watching! To subscribe to Wireless Philosophy on YouTube, click here!