A diversionary fallacy or red herring fallacy is an attempt to divert a conversation from its original topic. A red herring is used by introducing irrelevant information that distracts the reader or listener. This may or may not be intentional.
Cause
The red herring refers to information being used as a distraction. Detective novels, for example, often feature a character who attracts the reader's attention as a potential suspect but is ultimately proven innocent. In this case, the red herring is used as a literary device to send the reader down the wrong path, creating a plot twist and delivering a surprise ending.
Sometimes a red herring is used as a rhetorical strategy to persuade others, or even used accidentally in argument, in which case we call it a red herring fallacy. For example, politicians often use it as a diversionary tactic to evade questions difficult questions asked in public. Instead of answering the question, they may start talking about an unrelated topic to distract their audience.
This can happen for several reasons:
- Redirect a discussion towards a topic that is highly controversial and likely to get people's attention
- Confuse people by introducing a vague statement, causing them to forget the original topic
- Avoid answering a difficult question head-on, especially when people feel cornered or need to defend themselves.
- Avoid discussing a personal matter during a friendly conversation
It is important to remember that people who make a diversionary error do not always intend to manipulate others. Sometimes they do it without even realizing it, and it can sometimes be a justified effort to change the subject.
Example
During the COVID-19 pandemic, rumors and misinformation regarding vaccines have widely circulated on social media. Some of them included flimsy arguments, such as the following:
“The information I saw online about COVID-19 causing infertility this summer has been removed. I heard it was because of the Bill Gates and vaccine trials in Africa. Does this have to do with COVID-19 vaccines causing infertility? »
This is an example of a diversionary fallacy. Perhaps the person who asked the question online did not intend to confuse or misinform others, but they made an error in reasoning.
Discussions about information suppression and lawsuits involving Bill Gates distract from the main concern: whether COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility. To address this concern, it is important to focus on the issue related to vaccine safety rather than peripheral discussions related to online information and lawsuits.
How to Avoid a Red Herring Mistake
It is important to be able to spot a red herring in arguments. Depending on the situation, here are some ways to respond to this error:
- When you make or respond to an assumption, rewrite it before responding to frame the paragraph.
- Don't make assumptions if you don't have results or clear quotation allowing it to be answered directly, without going through generalities or ideas having nothing a priori to do with the initial hypothesis.
- To avoid a false lead, ask yourself to justify or further develop the argument.
- If you fail to satisfy an assumption. In this case, the best thing to do is to forget about it and continue the discussion.
EN 
FR