hello my name is Joseph Wu and I'm a
graduates internet 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
the attorney stands up for 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-Fi not really the
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 the chainsaw is an awful way
to die
notice however that the second claim
does not provide evidence for the first
it doesn't follow from the fact that
death by chainsaw was horrible that the
defendant actually committed the murder
in this scenario the attorney is used
the 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 the
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 the 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
of 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
the chainsaw they might begin
associating the crime with the defendant
instead of questioning the attorneys
assumption that the defendant actually
committed the crime so 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 health care and the politician
responds it's a tough issue many good
things are happening in health care now
like the recent bill that increases
cancer research funding it'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 health care 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 though 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
health care access finally the bill to
increase cancer research funding may
itself be a red herring if it fails to
address the root issues in health care
often policies generate vigorous debate
because they are flashy or controversial
but ultimately distract from meaningful
reform consider 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 being unfit for
office because he hates pizza clearly
once this like a pizza is irrelevant to
one's political abilities but the absurd
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 here's one
last example suppose you are debating
the best drink to have with dinner and
your friend argues this look whiskey 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 and even when
I traveled to France the wine was
delicious but I'd still rather have
whiskey with dinner there's not much
here that supports the conclusion that
whisky is the best drink with dinner
in fact the passage is full of tangents
that make it hard to follow the argument
this 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
criticise the argument when it is so
difficult to identify - some 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 have you heard of a red
herring recently if so please share it
below thanks for watching - subscribe to
wireless philosophy on YouTube click
here
you