This fallacy occurs when, instead of answering a question or addressing the main issue, a person diverts the discussion to another topic in order to distract the audience from the central matter.
Definition:
A red herring is a reasoning error in which a person, intentionally or unintentionally, replaces the main subject of the discussion with a side issue. This secondary topic may be related, but in reality, it has no direct and meaningful connection to the main question or issue. The aim of this fallacy can be to mislead, evade, or change the direction of the conversation.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
1. The main topic or question is introduced.
2. The speaker introduces another topic (usually tangential or loosely related).
3.The audience’s attention and energy are shifted to the secondary topic, and the main issue is set aside.
Examples from real life:
1. Politics:
“When a public official is asked about financial corruption, they start talking about the government’s recent successes in sport.”
Here, it should be noted that sporting achievements do not answer the question about financial corruption.
2. Education:
“A student who complains about the lack of educational equipment is accused by the head teacher of poor participation in the school’s sports competitions.”
Here, it should be noted that sports competitions are unrelated to the problem of educational equipment.
3. Media:
“While the media should be reporting on air pollution, most of the news airtime is devoted to entertainment topics.”
Here, it should be noted that entertainment coverage cannot replace informing the public about an environmental crisis.
4. Personal relationships:
“When you ask a friend why they have not repaid borrowed money, they start talking about memories from a trip you took together.”
Here, it should be noted that reminiscing about a trip does not answer your financial question.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
● It prevents a full and proper examination of the main issue.
● It can be used deliberately to hide the truth or mislead the audience.
● It wastes time and diverts important discussions to less significant matters.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
Ask:
– Is the new topic introduced really connected to the main issue?
– Does this change of subject delay or prevent an answer to the main question?
A suitable response might be: “That’s an interesting point, but let’s solve the main issue first and then come back to it.”
Conclusion:
The red herring fallacy diverts attention from the main question or issue to side topics, thus derailing the discussion. To counter this fallacy, one must strengthen the ability to identify genuine connections between topics and ensure that secondary matters do not replace the primary ones.