Red Herring - Critical Thinking Fallacies | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY

hello my name is Joseph Wu and I'm a graduates internet Cambridge in this video I'll explain the red herring a rhetorical device and fallacy that is often difficult to spot let's begin with an example from law imagine an attorney prosecuting a person for murder the attorney stands up for the jury and says this the defendant today is guilty of a horrendous crime he murdered the victim not with a gun not with a knife but with a chainsaw this was an awful way for the victim to die is this a good argument given the tools of logic we've learned from Wi-Fi not really the attorney is supposed to be arguing for the claim the defendant committed murder but the attorney appears to be arguing for a slightly different claim being killed with the chainsaw is an awful way to die notice however that the second claim does not provide evidence for the first it doesn't follow from the fact that death by chainsaw was horrible that the defendant actually committed the murder in this scenario the attorney is used the red herring since she's distracted the jury with a point that seems relevant but actually is not a red herring occurs when something is introduced to an argument that misleads or distracts from the relevant issue the term originates from a past practice that involved dragging a strong smelling red herring across one's trail to throw dogs off the scent similarly people often introduce irrelevant details into an argument to divert attention from the real issue at hand the red herring falls under the broader category of fallacies of relevance these are fallacies that arise when a premise whether true or not is not adequately related to the conclusion two other common fallacies of relevance are appeals to Authority and ad hominem arguments of course the attorney probably intentionally introduced the red herring in her statement the attorney may be trying to establish a link in the jury's mind between these two seemingly related claims once the jury reflects on how horrible it would be to be killed with the chainsaw they might begin associating the crime with the defendant instead of questioning the attorneys assumption that the defendant actually committed the crime so while some red herrings are accidental often they are intentional this is especially true in politics suppose a reporter asks a politician this how will you improve access to health care and the politician responds it's a tough issue many good things are happening in health care now like the recent bill that increases cancer research funding it's like our foreign policy I'm making good things happen there too this is a classic red herring on many levels first the politician deflects the issue of health care access to foreign policy hoping to shift the attention to another subject second the politician points to the recent bill that increases cancer research funding though related to healthcare it's unclear how more cancer research funding is relevant to healthcare access these are two separate issues the tactic here is to divert attention to a seemingly related subject everyone can agree upon since presumably everyone thinks more cancer research funding is good the politician can deflect attention to this agreement and avoid the more controversial question on health care access finally the bill to increase cancer research funding may itself be a red herring if it fails to address the root issues in health care often policies generate vigorous debate because they are flashy or controversial but ultimately distract from meaningful reform consider another example of how red herrings can be used to manipulate the media one way to do this is to make outlandish statements that make good stories suppose for instance you accuse your political rival being unfit for office because he hates pizza clearly once this like a pizza is irrelevant to one's political abilities but the absurd the claim is enough to spark a conversation that ultimately distracts from more meaningful issues this can be a very powerful strategy if the media spotlight is on the ridiculous pizza claim this gives yourself more coverage and it prevents your opponent from controlling the conversation here's one last example suppose you are debating the best drink to have with dinner and your friend argues this look whiskey is amazing it's delicious I once traveled to Scotland which is a gorgeous country and they just have the nicest people there it was a great time and even when I traveled to France the wine was delicious but I'd still rather have whiskey with dinner there's not much here that supports the conclusion that whisky is the best drink with dinner in fact the passage is full of tangents that make it hard to follow the argument this maneuver is a version of the red herring in which unnecessary details are included often to confuse opponents or hide gaping holes in an argument as a result it becomes extremely difficult to criticise the argument when it is so difficult to identify - some red herrings can take a number of different forms such as arguing for the wrong conclusion responding to the wrong question making outrageous claims going on tangents and offering shallow responses that fail to address the issues at stake have you heard of a red herring recently if so please share it below thanks for watching - subscribe to wireless philosophy on YouTube click here you

Channel: Wireless Philosophy

Views: 143,591

Keywords: Khan Academy, Philosophy, Wireless Philosophy, Wiphi, video, lecture, course, critical thinking, red herring, joseph wu, fallacies, fallacy, university of cambridge, logic

Id: Af0STrY58i4

Length: 6min 1sec (361 seconds)

Published: Fri Dec 15 2017