Red herring

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(minor wikifying)
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 ==
  
 
==
 
Examples of Red herrings ==
 
 
----
 
 
If, in a debate on the existence of god, a theist states:
 
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."
"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.
 
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 12:56, 7 October 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.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox