Howdy, folks! Today we talk fish. Specifically, fallacious fish of a scarlet persuasion. That’s right, dear readers, today we talk about the Red Herring Fallacy! Without further ado, let’s cast our nets wide, bait our hooks, chum the waters, and uh...do other things related to our rouge piscine quarry.
The term originates with an 1807 story published in Political Register by William Cobbett, a British journalist and politician, in which a smoked fish is used to distract hounds from chasing a rabbit. Originally, before red herring became the popular term for it, the fallacy was known as ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion. And then there’s the Chewbacca Defense (more about that later; you don’t really expect me to leave a Star Wars reference unexplained, do you?).
So, what’s that got to do with a red herring? The fallacy in question is a case in which one party attempts to divert attention from the real issue by presenting information that is irrelevant or only tenuously related to the real issue.
Here’s an example:
Reporter: Senator Smith, your signature legislation doesn’t appear to have had any impact on unemployment despite that being the goal. Can you comment on why that might be the case?
Senator Smith: I work tirelessly for my constituents and have a reputation of being able to reach across the aisle to my colleagues on the other side of the political fence, and I’ll continue to work for my constituents in the future.
In the example, Senator Smith is challenged to comment on a piece of legislation, and instead responds with a tangent about working for his constituents and bipartisanship. Though his response might be maybe tangentially related, it doesn’t answer the question at all and simply provides a distraction from the issue.
Another one:
Teacher: Billy, can you tell me one of President Lincoln’s accomplishments?
Billy (knowing the teacher is a huge Star Wars fan, and knowing he didn’t read even one sentence of the assignment): Gee, Mrs. Johnson, did you see the latest episode of the Mandalorian? Wow, what’d you think of it?
Billy is flinging fish here in an effort to derail the teacher’s question to him and hide the fact that he didn’t read the assignment.
And another:
Daughter: Hey, dad, I’m 13 now and doing more chores, can I get a raise on my allowance?
Dad: Y’know, back in my day I saved my allowance to buy a Nintendo. Great times. My buddies and I spent hours playing that thing after school.
Here’s dear old Dad, tossing a red herring to try to derail his daughter’s request for an allowance increase with an anecdote about using his allowance as a kid to buy a gaming system. Psst, hey Dad — nice try, but I don’t think she’s gonna bite.
A red herring doesn’t have to be an intentional thing; someone may simply have such sloppy thinking or poor debate skills that they blunder into it unintentionally. But the effect is the same, regardless of intent.
In media, red herrings are a common device, especially in mysteries, to distract the reader/viewer/listener and lead them astray from some key element of the story. The Hound of the Baskervilles, for example, provides a red herring in the form of an escaped convict loose on the moors who might be a suspect, but of course is not the culprit (uh, it’s not considered a spoiler to give details from a story published 120 years ago and has had at least 20 film and tv adaptations made, is it?).
So, earlier I mentioned the Chewbacca Defense. What is the Chewbacca Defense? It’s a ploy used in South Park by (not the real) Johnny Cochrane to confuse a jury.
Cochran: ...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski: Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense!
Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
You might recall my post on non sequiturs, and after reading the Chewbacca Defense, you’ll see that red herrings can certainly overlap into non sequitur territory.
That’s all for today, folks! Next time, we take a look at the Gamblers Fallacy!
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp is a twice weekly series with posts dropping on Wednesdays and Fridays. A companion series, Cognitive Bias Bootcamp, drops on Mondays. If you are new to the series and would like to catch up on past offerings of either, or just want to revisit them, the linked titles are listed below!
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp:
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: The Strawman
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: The Slippery Slope
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Begging the Question
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Poisoning the Well
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: No True Scotsman!
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Ad Hominem
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: False Dilemma
Logical Fallacies Bootcamp: Non Sequitur
Cognitive Bias Bootcamp:
Cognitive Bias Bootcamp: Bystander Effect
Cognitive Bias Bootcamp: Curse of Knowledge