Red Herring

01Overview

The red herring fallacy is a type of distraction used in arguments to shift attention away from the original topic. Instead of addressing the point at hand, someone introduces an irrelevant issue that diverts the discussion. The term "red herring" comes from the practice of using a strong-smelling smoked fish to distract hunting dogs from a trail. In reasoning, a red herring is any statement or question that pulls the conversation off course, often making it seem as if the original issue has been resolved or is unimportant.

This fallacy falls under the category of distraction and misdirection. It is closely related to other fallacies like straw man, non sequitur, and whataboutism. What makes red herrings particularly tricky is that they can be subtle; the distracting point might seem relevant at first glance, but upon closer inspection, it does not bear on the truth or falsity of the original claim. Recognizing red herrings is essential for clear thinking because they can derail productive discussions and prevent us from reaching well-reasoned conclusions.

Red herrings appear in everyday conversations, debates, and even in advertising. For example, when asked about a mistake at work, someone might respond by highlighting a colleague's mistake instead. This shifts the focus away from their own error. The key is that the new information, while possibly true, is irrelevant to the original question. By learning to spot red herrings, we can keep discussions on track and ensure that arguments are evaluated on their merits.

02What it is and how to spot it

A red herring occurs when someone introduces an irrelevant topic into an argument to divert attention from the original issue. The distraction can take many forms: a tangential anecdote, a counter-accusation, a statistical fact that doesn't relate, or even a joke. The defining characteristic is that the new point does not logically connect to the claim being discussed. It is a form of misdirection, meant to confuse or to buy time, or to make the audience forget what was being debated.

To spot a red herring, ask yourself: Does this new information actually address the original question? If the answer is no, it's likely a red herring. Another clue is when someone responds to a criticism by changing the subject rather than answering directly. For instance, if someone is asked why they were late and they reply, "Well, you were late last week," they are using a red herring. The fact that you were late previously does not excuse their lateness now. It's a diversion.

Red herrings can also be more subtle. Sometimes a person might bring up a related but ultimately irrelevant point that seems to support their position. For example, in a debate about whether a school should ban smartphones, someone might argue that smartphones are useful for emergencies. While that may be true, it doesn't address the potential distractions smartphones cause in class. The key is to identify whether the new point is relevant to the specific claim being made. If it's not, it's a red herring.

03A worked example

Imagine two roommates, Alex and Jamie, discussing household chores. Alex says, "I noticed you didn't take out the trash yesterday, even though it was your turn." Jamie replies, "Well, you left your dishes in the sink all week. Why are you complaining about the trash?" Here, Jamie has introduced a red herring. The original issue is whether Jamie took out the trash as agreed. By bringing up Alex's dishes, Jamie shifts the focus to Alex's behavior, avoiding the original point. The fact that Alex left dishes in the sink might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that Jamie didn't do their chore. The discussion is now about Alex's dishes instead of Jamie's trash.

This example illustrates how red herrings work in everyday life. The distraction is effective because it puts Alex on the defensive, and the conversation may devolve into a tit-for-tat exchange about who is a better roommate. The original question—did Jamie fulfill their responsibility?—gets lost. To avoid falling for the red herring, Alex could say, "We can talk about the dishes later, but right now I'm asking about the trash. Did you forget?" This keeps the discussion on track.

Red herrings are common in arguments because they are easy to produce and can feel like a valid counterpoint. However, they do not resolve the issue. In this case, even if Alex is also guilty of not doing chores, it doesn't excuse Jamie's lapse. Each issue should be addressed separately. Recognizing the red herring helps maintain fair and productive communication.

04Why it's misleading

Red herrings are misleading because they create the illusion of addressing an issue while actually avoiding it. When someone introduces an irrelevant point, they may make it seem as though the original argument has been answered or that the critic is being hypocritical. This can confuse the audience and make it harder to evaluate the original claim. In a debate, a red herring can derail the entire discussion, wasting time and preventing a resolution. It can also unfairly shift the burden of proof onto the person who raised the original point, forcing them to defend themselves against a new accusation.

Moreover, red herrings exploit our cognitive biases. We are naturally drawn to novelty and to social dynamics like reciprocity and fairness. If someone accuses us of something, we might feel compelled to defend ourselves, even if the accusation is irrelevant. This emotional pull can make it difficult to stay focused on the logical structure of the argument. For example, in the roommate scenario, Alex might feel the need to justify the dishes, forgetting that the trash was the initial concern. The red herring works by hijacking our attention.

In addition, red herrings can be used to manipulate perceptions. Politicians and advertisers often use them to divert attention from unfavorable topics. Since the distraction may be true or partially true, it can seem legitimate. But truth alone does not make a point relevant. A statement can be factually accurate yet still be a red herring if it doesn't bear on the issue at hand. Understanding this helps us avoid being misled by seemingly relevant but ultimately tangential information.

05Related fallacies and how they differ

Red herrings are often confused with other fallacies that also involve distraction, such as straw man, non sequitur, and whataboutism. A straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. For example, if someone says, "We should have more bike lanes," and the response is, "So you want to ban cars?" that's a straw man. The difference is that a straw man distorts the original argument, while a red herring introduces a new, irrelevant topic. Both are distractions, but the straw man directly engages with a twisted version of the original point, whereas the red herring ignores it entirely.

A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises. For instance, "She is a good singer, therefore she would make a great mayor." The conclusion about being a mayor doesn't follow from singing ability. Red herrings can sometimes be non sequiturs, but not all non sequiturs are red herrings. A non sequitur is a broader category of flawed logical connection, while a red herring is specifically a diversionary tactic. In a red herring, the irrelevant point is introduced intentionally to distract, whereas a non sequitur might be an honest mistake in reasoning.

Whataboutism is a specific type of red herring where someone responds to an accusation by pointing out a similar fault in the accuser or in another party. For example, "You say I cheated on the test, but what about you? You cheated last year." This is a red herring because it shifts focus to the accuser's behavior. However, whataboutism is distinct in its tit-for-tat structure. All whataboutism is a red herring, but not all red herrings are whataboutism. Understanding these differences helps in identifying the exact fallacy being used.

06How to respond

When faced with a red herring, the best response is to calmly redirect the conversation back to the original point. You can acknowledge the new point without letting it derail the discussion. For example, you might say, "That's an interesting point, but let's stay focused on the original question." This approach avoids escalating conflict and keeps the dialogue productive. It's important not to get defensive or to take the bait. If the other person persists, you can politely but firmly repeat the original issue.

Another strategy is to explicitly point out the diversion. You could say, "I notice you've changed the subject. Can we return to what we were discussing?" This names the tactic without being accusatory. It can help the other person realize they are avoiding the issue. In some cases, the red herring might be unintentional, so giving the benefit of the doubt is fair. If the person continues to evade, you may need to decide whether the discussion is worth continuing. Sometimes, it's best to disengage if the other party is unwilling to engage honestly.

Additionally, you can use the "principle of charity" by assuming the other person might have a reason for bringing up the new point. You could ask, "How does that relate to the original question?" This invites them to clarify and may reveal that they have a relevant connection in mind. If they cannot, it reinforces that the point is a distraction. Ultimately, staying focused on the issue and not allowing yourself to be sidetracked is key to maintaining a logical and fair discussion.

07Frequently asked questions

Q: Is a red herring always intentional? A: Not necessarily. Sometimes people introduce irrelevant points without realizing they are diverting from the topic. It can be a genuine mistake in reasoning. However, the effect is the same: it distracts from the original issue. Whether intentional or not, it's useful to recognize and address it.

Q: Can a red herring ever be relevant? A: In rare cases, what seems like a red herring might actually be relevant if it provides necessary context or addresses a related assumption. For example, if someone questions your credibility based on a past error, bringing up that error might be relevant to the discussion of trust. But generally, if the point does not directly bear on the truth of the original claim, it's a red herring.

Q: How is a red herring different from simply changing the subject? A: Changing the subject can be a red herring, but not all subject changes are fallacious. In casual conversation, changing the subject might be natural. In an argument or debate, however, if the change is used to avoid addressing a point, it becomes a red herring. The key is the context and the intent to divert from the logical issue at hand.