Red Herring or Diversion Fallacy or Obfuscation Fallacy

Home page
Data Science

Red Herring Error

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 used as a diversion. Detective novels, for example, often feature a character who initially 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 lead the reader astray, 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 posed 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:

  • To redirect a discussion by steering it towards a highly controversial topic likely to attract 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 this summer about COVID-19 causing infertility has been removed. I heard it was because of the lawsuits related to Bill Gates and vaccines in Africa. Does this have anything 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's important to be able to spot a red herring in the arguments. Depending on the situation, here are some ways to address this error:

  • When you make or respond to a hypothesis, rewrite it before responding to it in order to frame the paragraph.
  • Don't make assumptions if you don't have any results or a clear quote allowing a direct response, without resorting to generalities or ideas that a priori have nothing to do with the initial hypothesis.
  • To avoid going down the wrong path, ask yourself to justify or further develop the argument.
  • If you are unable to satisfy a hypothesis, the best thing to do is to forget about it and continue the discussion.