Red Herring Fallacy
in [Math]
|
From: TXZZ on 30 Apr 2010 23:00 On Apr 30, 7:38 pm, TXZZ <poopdog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Alright, back to the basics (if this were not necessary politics would > be better....) > > Somehow, intuitively, I have trouble understanding why red herring is > a fallacy. It's just not solid. > > Let me copy-paste an example of the fallacy: > > I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for > the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After > all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries > affected > > Now....this is a fallacy because teaches salary is not *necessarily* > relevant. > > But claiming data or input is wrong because it's not *necessarily* > relevant doesn't make sense to me. YOu can't flat out call that a > fallacy. > > Is it really correct to call red herring a logical fallacy? I hear > it's not considered a formal fallacy. > > Thank you for your time
From: Hamie on 30 Apr 2010 23:59 If something is a tautology, it doesn't mean it's not relevant. "TXZZ" <poopdog888(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
From: Virgil on 1 May 2010 00:34 In article <hrg8uu$le5$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Hamie" <master_frogger(a)example.invalid> wrote: > > "TXZZ" <poopdog888(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:7e5b1bb7-3b2a-433a-a937-99e41ff30374(a)k41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > >I have a problem understanding why red herring is a logical fallacy > > > > Basically, someone tries to change the subject with vaguely relevant > > data > > > > but vaguely relevant data is not a fallacy; nor is changing the subject > If something is a tautology, it doesn't mean it's not relevant. Doesn't mean it is, either. The truth of an alleged red herring is not the issue that determines whether it is a real red herring, it is its relevance that determines that.
From: David Bernier on 1 May 2010 01:01 Virgil wrote: > In article <hrg8uu$le5$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Hamie" <master_frogger(a)example.invalid> wrote: > > >> "TXZZ" <poopdog888(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:7e5b1bb7-3b2a-433a-a937-99e41ff30374(a)k41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>> I have a problem understanding why red herring is a logical fallacy >>> >>> Basically, someone tries to change the subject with vaguely relevant >>> data >>> >>> but vaguely relevant data is not a fallacy; nor is changing the subject > >> If something is a tautology, it doesn't mean it's not relevant. > > Doesn't mean it is, either. > > The truth of an alleged red herring is not the issue that determines > whether it is a real red herring, it is its relevance that determines > that. I was thinking of cases where there are two or more competing theories for some event (say a standard theory and a conspiracy theory). Then, at first glance, it seems possible that a certain fact could be irrelevant in the standard theory, but relevant in the conspiracy theory (and vice versa). David Bernier
From: Virgil on 1 May 2010 02:07
In article <hrgcjr019sr(a)news2.newsguy.com>, David Bernier <david250(a)videotron.ca> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > In article <hrg8uu$le5$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > > "Hamie" <master_frogger(a)example.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >> "TXZZ" <poopdog888(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. > > I was thinking of cases where there are two or more competing theories > for some event (say a standard theory and a conspiracy theory). > > Then, at first glance, it seems possible that a certain fact > could be irrelevant in the standard theory, but relevant in the conspiracy > theory (and vice versa). > > David Bernier Bit of a stretch! |