Red herring
(Difference between revisions)
(thanks, Wikipedia) |
|||
| 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. | '''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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Examples of Red herrings | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | If, in a debate on the existence of god, a theist states: | ||
| + | |||
| + | "God must be real, because if god were not real, I would have no reason to go on living." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Here, the theist makes a claim that provides no further evidence for the existence of a god, and in fact, makes a claim that leads to an entirely different topic of conversation. | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
[[Category:Logical fallacies]] | [[Category:Logical fallacies]] | ||
Revision as of 21:57, 15 March 2008
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.
Examples of Red herrings
If, in a debate on the existence of god, a theist states:
"God must be real, because if god were not real, I would have no reason to go on living."
Here, the theist makes a claim that provides no further evidence for the existence of a god, and in fact, makes a claim that leads to an entirely different topic of conversation.
