Red Herring: The Art of Changing the Subject
A red herring is an irrelevant topic introduced into an argument to divert attention from the original issue. Named after the practice of using smoked fish to throw hunting dogs off a scent, this fallacy works by shifting the debate to a different topic that may seem related but is logically irrelevant.
How Red Herrings Work
The red herring operates by introducing a topic that is emotionally compelling or seemingly related but logically irrelevant to the point under discussion. The audience's attention shifts to the new topic, and the original argument goes unanswered.
'Why should we fund space exploration when there are children starving on Earth?' This introduces a genuinely important issue (child hunger) that is emotionally compelling, but it does not address whether space exploration has value. The question of space funding and the question of hunger relief are separate policy issues that do not inherently compete.
Red herrings are especially effective because the introduced topic is often legitimate and important. This makes it feel wrong to dismiss it. But acknowledging that an issue is important is different from accepting it as relevant to the current argument.
Detecting Red Herrings
To detect a red herring, continually ask: 'Does this actually address the original argument?' If someone changes the subject, no matter how interesting or important the new subject is, and the original argument goes unaddressed, a red herring has been deployed.
Politicians are particularly skilled at red herrings. When asked a direct question about their record, they may pivot to attacking their opponent, discussing a different (more favorable) topic, or making an emotional appeal that does not address the question. Watch press conferences and debates with this lens, and you will see red herrings everywhere.
Red herrings can also be subtle. Sometimes the new topic is close enough to the original that the shift is not immediately obvious. 'We should not raise the minimum wage because it will hurt small businesses' could be a legitimate argument or a red herring, depending on whether the discussion was about the minimum wage or about small business policy.
Countering Red Herrings
The most effective response is to explicitly name the topic change and redirect: 'That is an interesting point, but it does not address the issue we are discussing. The question is...' This signals to the audience that the subject was changed and refocuses the discussion.
You can also acknowledge the introduced topic without accepting it as relevant: 'I agree that child hunger is important, and it deserves its own discussion. But right now we are discussing space exploration, and the argument for it stands.'
In formal debates, keeping track of the flow of arguments helps you notice when a red herring has been deployed. If your opponent has dropped your original argument and introduced a new topic, point out that your argument remains unaddressed.
- •A red herring introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original argument.
- •The introduced topic is often important and emotional, making it seem wrong to dismiss.
- •Detect red herrings by asking: 'Does this actually address the original argument?'
- •Counter by naming the topic change and redirecting to the original issue.
- •Politicians frequently use red herrings to avoid answering direct questions.