Red Herring Fallacy

A Red Herring Fallacy is a reference to fish with a strong odor. It could be used to confuse a dog that hunted by smell. By covering up a person’s smell with the smell of a stinky fish, dogs could be lead away from a person that the dogs were tracking. The Red Herring Fallacy is a deception. Red Herring is a fallacy that is committed when the intended question or statement is diverted by a similar topic that misleads the audience without them noticing. House obviously believes that a case he chooses is important and does not believe his actions should be questioned.

When your mom gets your phone bill and you have gone over the limit, you begin talking to her about how hard your math class is and how well you did on a test today.2. When you are late getting home-past curfew-you distract your parents by talking to them about the weather-how cold it is, or how rainy it is.3. The mother of a young child tells him to go to bed, and he begins to ask questions, say that he is hungry, or say that he needs to go to the bathroom-all to avoid bed and distract mom.Examples of Red Herrings in Speech and LiteratureThe U.S. Buzz bomber. Would not actually 'default' on debt, as President Obama states in this speech, designed to divert attention from a discussion the debt ceiling:I am not going to have a monthly or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills because that in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It's hurting our economy as we speak.

We shouldn't be having that debate.Regulation, in reality, was only a small factor in layoffs across the country, but in a campaign speech, Mitt Romney suggests otherwise:We heard today about fishing regulations. I'll continue to learn more about those regulations as they affect this industry. But across America, regulators are just multiplying like proverbial rabbits and making it harder for enterprises to grow and to understand what their future might be.' Related Links:Red Herring Examples.

Contents.Overview Ignoratio elenchi is one of the fallacies identified by in his. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy which arises from 'ignorance of the nature of refutation'. In order to refute an assertion, Aristotle says we must prove its contradictory; the proof, consequently, of a proposition which stood in any other relation than that to the original, would be an ignoratio elenchi.

Since Aristotle, the scope of the fallacy has been extended to include all cases of proving the wrong point 'I am required to prove a certain conclusion; I prove, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it; in that lies the fallacy For instance, instead of proving that ‘this person has committed an atrocious fraud’, you prove that ‘this fraud he is accused of is atrocious;’' The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute a proof of the original one It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close relation with it. — Arthur Ernest Davies, 'Fallacies' in A Text-Book of Logic● Example 1: A and B are debating as to whether criticizing indirectly has any merit in general.A: There is no point in people ranting on social media about politics; the president is not going to read it anyway.

B: But it is their social media. People can agree on making a petition or convey notice from many others that they will be signing one based on their concerns. Bishop Whately, cited by: A System of Logic. London Colchester 1959 (first: 1843), pp. 542.

^ Patrick J. Hurley (2011). Cengage Learning. Pp. 131–133.

Aristotle (1878). The Organon, or Logical treatises, of Aristotle.

Octavius Freire Owen (translation). Covent Garden: George Bell and Sons.

Introduction to Logic. 24 September 2009. Davies, Arthur Ernest (1915). Adams and company. Pp. –576.

H. Entry for ignoratio elenchi., p. 316 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBate1977. Bagnall, Nicholas. Books: Paperbacks, 3 March 1996., p. 122 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBoswell1986. ––. ^ (1970).

P. Neon hard corps center.  31. Christopher W. Tindale (2007).

Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press. P. 34.External links Look up in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

(bilingual with the original ) by.