Red Herring Fallacy
in [Math]
|
From: TXZZ on 1 May 2010 05:46 On Apr 30, 11:34 pm, Virgil <Vir...(a)home.esc> wrote: > In article <hrg8uu$le...(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > > "Hamie" <master_frog...(a)example.invalid> wrote: > > > "TXZZ" <poopdog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:7e5b1bb7-3b2a-433a-a937-99e41ff30374(a)k41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > >I have a problem understanding why red herring is a logical fallacy > > > > Basically, someone tries to change the subject with vaguely relevant > > > data > > > > but vaguely relevant data is not a fallacy; nor is changing the subject > > If something is a tautology, it doesn't mean it's not relevant. > > Doesn't mean it is, either. > > The truth of an alleged red herring is not the issue that determines > whether it is a real red herring, it is its relevance that determines > that. Calling data, or even a different subject, Utterly Irrelevant data? You would need an extreme example of red herring for that. And hence the dillema; it's not really a fallacy because most red herring arguments don't declare to be *nececssarily* true. They just try to change the topic; which is irrational yet not really a fallacy. |