Red Herring: Identify and Defend Against Distractions

The following is a continuing exploration of AI as a research tool and “content generator”. It is widely assumed that an increasing number of online news, opinion, and entertainment content will be AI productions.

I asked Google's AI, Gemini,

“Give me a 1,000-word essay on how to identify and defend against the red herring logical fallacy.”

Google's AI, Gemini output:

A red herring is a logical fallacy where an irrelevant topic is introduced to divert attention from the original issue. It's a tactic used to mislead and distract, often seen in debates, arguments, and even everyday conversations. Identifying and defending against this fallacy is crucial for maintaining clear, productive discussions and ensuring that arguments are evaluated on their merits.

Identifying the Red Herring Fallacy

Spotting a red herring requires careful attention to the flow of an argument. Here are some key indicators:

1. Topic Shift

The most obvious sign is a sudden and unrelated change in subject. The new topic might seem loosely connected at first glance, but upon closer inspection, it doesn't contribute to resolving the original point. For instance, if you're discussing the rising cost of healthcare and someone brings up the high price of gasoline, it's likely a red herring. While both involve cost, they are distinct issues.

2. Emotional Appeal

Red herrings often capitalize on emotions to distract. The introduced topic might be designed to evoke anger, pity, fear, or sympathy, thereby diverting focus from the logical merits of the argument. Imagine a debate about environmental regulations where an opponent suddenly starts talking about the struggles of a specific, unrelated industry, trying to elicit sympathy to avoid addressing the environmental concerns directly.

3. Irrelevant Information

The information presented, while potentially true, is not pertinent to the central argument. It might be interesting or even important in another context, but it has no bearing on the issue at hand. If a politician is questioned about their voting record on a bill and responds by discussing their charitable donations, the donations, while commendable, are irrelevant to their voting choices on that particular bill.

4. Lack of Progression

When a red herring is deployed, the original argument tends to stall or go off-track. The discussion doesn't move closer to a resolution of the initial point; instead, it gets bogged down in the new, unrelated topic. If you find yourself wondering how the current discussion relates to the initial premise, you're likely encountering a red herring.

5. Weak Analogy or Comparison

Sometimes, a red herring is introduced through a weak or forced analogy that tries to equate two dissimilar things to create a distraction. The comparison might sound plausible at first but breaks down under scrutiny. For example, arguing that "regulating social media is like regulating free speech" when the original discussion is about platform responsibility for harmful content. The analogy attempts to conflate two distinct concepts to shift the debate.

Defending Against the Red Herring Fallacy

Once you've identified a red herring, the next step is to effectively defend against it. This involves redirecting the conversation and ensuring the focus remains on the original issue.

1. Call It Out Directly

The most straightforward approach is to politely but firmly point out the fallacy. You might say, "That's an interesting point, but it seems to be a different issue than what we were discussing," or "While [new topic] is important, let's get back to [original topic]." Be clear and concise in your redirection.

2. Reiterate the Original Point

After identifying the red herring, restate the original argument or question clearly. This helps to re-establish the focus and reminds everyone involved of what was initially being discussed. For example, "To return to my original question about the healthcare costs, what are your thoughts on..."

3. Ask for Clarification on Relevance

If you're unsure whether the new topic is truly a red herring or if you're missing a connection, ask the person to explain its relevance. You could say, "Could you explain how [new topic] relates to [original topic]?" This forces the person to either justify the connection or reveal the irrelevance of their point. If they struggle to establish a clear link, it strengthens your case that a red herring was deployed.

4. Refuse to Engage with the New Topic

Do not get drawn into a discussion about the irrelevant topic. Engaging with the red herring only validates it as a legitimate part of the conversation and further derails the original argument. Politely decline to discuss the new topic until the original point has been addressed.

5. Stay Calm and Rational

It's easy to get frustrated when someone employs a red herring, but maintaining your composure is vital. Emotional responses can make you appear less credible and might even play into the hand of someone trying to distract you. Keep your tone even and your reasoning clear.

6. Focus on the Core Issue

Always keep the central thesis or question of the original argument in mind. When a new point is introduced, ask yourself: "Does this new information help us understand or resolve the core issue?" If the answer is no, it's likely a red herring.

7. Practice Active Listening

Active listening involves fully concentrating on what the other person is saying, not just waiting for your turn to speak. This helps you quickly identify when an argument veers off course. By truly understanding the content of the discussion, you're better equipped to spot inconsistencies or irrelevant tangents.

Conclusion

The red herring fallacy is a pervasive and often subtle tactic used to derail productive conversations. By understanding its characteristics – the sudden topic shift, emotional appeals, irrelevant information, lack of progression, and weak analogies – you can become adept at identifying it. More importantly, by employing defensive strategies such as direct calling out, reiterating the original point, asking for clarification, refusing to engage, and maintaining a calm demeanor, you can effectively neutralize this fallacy. Mastering these skills enhances critical thinking, promotes clearer communication, and ensures that discussions remain focused on relevant issues, leading to more logical and informed conclusions. Being able to spot and counter red herrings is an invaluable skill for navigating complex discussions in all aspects of life, from academic debates to everyday interactions.

-----

NOTE: This summary is, in large part, provided by Google's AI, Gemini. As the series continues, each summary will be expanded upon and embodied in the mission and vision of Rubicon Free Press.

Some source material is from

1. https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/red-herring-fallacy/

2. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365-life-hacks/writing/what-is-a-red-herring

3. https://library.fiveable.me/hs-speech-debate/unit-4/straw-man-red-herring-fallacies/study-guide/zPnFhx2WOru1ntbm

4. https://salesgravy.com/watch-out-for-red-herring-sales-objections/

5. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-right-balance/201610/are-you-really-listening-or-just-waiting-to-talk

6. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/mastering-red-herring-in-logic#:~:text=By%20mastering%20the%20detection%20and,skills%20and%20construct%20more%20robust

7. https://quicktakes.io/learn/philosophy-and-greek-myths/questions/how-can-one-effectively-identify-and-address-red-herrings-in-debates

-----

Got news? Publish yours today!