Red herring

Since unsound argumentation and wrong reasoning are quite common and can have annoying consequences, I regularly pay attention to this problem. It’s not only for my readers but also for myself, for I, too, often make reasoning errors or don’t see it, when others make them. Some incorrect argumentations are logical mistakes. They are called formal fallacies. Other incorrect argumentations are not so much logically false but they employ crippled reasoning. They are called informal fallacies. Some crippled reasoning is not even that, and it may be even correct. I mean, the reasoning as such is correct but it has little to do with the question it is supposed to answer or the problem it is supposed to solve. From this point of view, there is no rhyme or reason in it. If this happens, the speaker or writer commits the red herring fallacy.
As said, the reasoning in a red herring argument as such need not to be false. It can also be intentionally put forward that way, for a red herring often serves as a way of distraction from the question or problem at stake. It is used as a diversionary tactic.
Let’s see what Heather Rivera in my book Bad Arguments says about it (see Reference): “A red herring is a distraction device and refers to an informal logical fallacy that distracts from the actual issue, allowing one to be sidetracked from what is actually happening and to draw a false conclusion.” (p. 208)
Often a red herring discussion runs as follows (compare p. 208):
1) Person 1 presents argument, issue or topic A.
2) Person 2 introduces argument, issue or topic B.
3) Argument, issue or topic A is abandoned or forgotten and the discussion goes on about argument, issue or topic B.
Red herrings belong to the most frequent informal fallacies. They happen in many discussions and interviews. Let me quote again Rivera: “This [the 3-step argumentation given above] occurs on a daily basis when a reporter or journalist asks the typical politician a question related to one issue (complete with its associated argument), and the politician responds with a wholly different – but often compelling – issue (complete with an associated argument.” (p. 209)
This time I’ll not illustrate my blog with an example, but I’ll ask you to do something: The next time you see an interview with a politician, on TV, on the Internet or in real, just listen whether the person interviewed really answers the questions asked or whether he or she instead (so without answering the questions asked) leads the conversation to a theme s/he wants to talk about or simply leads the interview away from a theme s/he doesn’t want to talk about. If so, the politician throws a red herring to you. Of course, after having read this blog you’ll not pick it up, for you have become wiser. You know now that s/he tries to mislead you, intentionally, or, unintentionally, for example, because s/he is not smart enough to understand the question asked. And what does the interviewer do? Does s/he see that the interview is going the wrong way?

Reference

Arp, Robert; Steven Barbone; Michael Bruce (eds.), Bad arguments. 100 of the most important fallacies in Western philosophy. Oxford, etc.: Wiley Blackwell, 2019. Especially Heather Rivera, “Red Herring”, pp. 208-210.