Red Herring

A red herring is an argument which is used to distract from the original issue by introducing some irrelevant issue or topic. This seems to be thought of as both a logical fallacy and a debating tactic. I guess it is a rhetorical tool when used consciously but is always a fallacy.

Supposedly, the etymology of this fallacy came from the training of dogs in the sport of fox hunting. The dog trainer would drag a cured red herring across the trail of a fox to confuse the dogs. Eventually the dogs would be able to follow the scent of the fox rather than the scent of the herring.

Its basic structure is;

1) A is the topic of discussion,
2) B is introduced as a distraction from topic A,
3) A is abandoned.

Example 1
"This new computer program is too slow for me to be able to get my work done on time and it is missing some of the necessary features the old program used to have." Steve replies "What you have failed to understand is that the new software cost half as much as the other program and is much easier to learn."

With this example Steve's argument does not in anyway address the original topic which is that the program is too slow and missing necessary features. Instead he introduces an irrelevant argument regarding costs and learning time which distracts from the original issue. This is not to say that Steve's argument is irrelevant to some other issues but it does not in anyway address the original issue.


Example 2
SENATOR YATES: Why aren’t you willing to support my antiabortion amendment? Don’t
you have any feelings at all for the unborn children whose lives are being indiscriminately
blotted out?

SENATOR WEBB: Yes, I do. That’s why I don’t understand why those of you who are so concerned 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. Isn’t the issue of the sanctity of human life involved in both issues? Why haven’t you supported us in our efforts at gun-control legislation?

Senator Webb’s concern here is no doubt a very important one, and his “conclusion” or observation about inconsistency may be very insightful, but he does not answer the question at issue, which is why he is not supporting the antiabortion amendment.(1)

(1) Attacking Faulty Reasoning