Red herring

From Iron Chariots Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''Red herring'' is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
+
A '''red herring''' is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
  
This isn't so much a fallacy as it is an evasion tactic. The red herring is similar to a "wild goose chase." When someone leads the debate off on a red herring, they are trying to divert attention away from a particular argument, and toward some inconsequential statement that you may have made, or inventing some tangent to go off on. Creationists often use this when they attack the Big Bang Theory to try and prove evolution wrong. The Big Bang and evolution are completely separate theories, and are not mutually inclusive. The Creationist trying to debate the Big Bang is a red herring.
+
This isn't so much a [[Logical fallacy|fallacy]] as it is an evasion tactic. The red herring is similar to a "wild goose chase." When someone leads the debate off on a red herring, they are trying to divert attention away from a particular argument, and toward some inconsequential statement that you may have made, or inventing some tangent to go off on. Creationists often use this when they attack the Big Bang Theory to try and prove evolution wrong. The Big Bang and evolution are completely separate theories, and are not mutually inclusive. The Creationist trying to debate the Big Bang is a red herring.
  
 
Example:
 
Example:
  
"Evolution is impossible because the Big Bang is a totally unacceptable theory because it defies the word of our loving Creator, He who sent His only Son, our Lord to...[continue with mindless religious yammering ad infinitum]."
+
::"Evolution is impossible because the Big Bang is merely speculation."
  
 
Counter:
 
Counter:
  
The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. If it was proven wrong tomorrow, it wouldn't change the fact that organisms evolve to adapt to their environment, or they die.
+
::The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Even if it were proven wrong tomorrow, it wouldn't change the fact that populations adapt to their environment.
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Latest revision as of 16:37, 3 January 2011

A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.

This isn't so much a fallacy as it is an evasion tactic. The red herring is similar to a "wild goose chase." When someone leads the debate off on a red herring, they are trying to divert attention away from a particular argument, and toward some inconsequential statement that you may have made, or inventing some tangent to go off on. Creationists often use this when they attack the Big Bang Theory to try and prove evolution wrong. The Big Bang and evolution are completely separate theories, and are not mutually inclusive. The Creationist trying to debate the Big Bang is a red herring.

Example:

"Evolution is impossible because the Big Bang is merely speculation."

Counter:

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Even if it were proven wrong tomorrow, it wouldn't change the fact that populations adapt to their environment.
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox