A set of premisses is logically irrelevant to a conclusion if their truth does not make it more likely that the conclusion is true. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy. Red Herring is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. As with all of Aristotle's original fallacies, its application has widened to include all arguments, not just refutations or those occurring in the context of a debate. The ignorance involved is either ignorance of the conclusion to be refutedeven deliberately ignoring itor ignorance of what constitutes a refutation, so that the attempt misses the mark. It is often known by the Latin name "ignoratio elenchi", which is a translation of Aristotle's Greek phrase for "ignorance of refutation". This fallacy is one of Aristotle's thirteen fallacies identified in his pioneering work On Sophistical Refutations, which dealt with fallacious refutations in debate. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it can be easy to lose track of it. In the context of argumentation, a red herring is something which distracts the audience from the issue in question. Thus, in general, a "red herring" is anything that can be used to distract attention 5. According to one story 3, dragging a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, across the trail of the fox would throw the hounds off the scent 4. The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting. Subfallacies: Appeal to Consequences, Bandwagon Fallacy, Emotional Appeal, Genetic Fallacy, Guilt by Association, Straw Man, Two Wrongs Make a Right Etymology: Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Informal Fallacy > Red Herring Alias 1: Befogging the Issue, Diversion, Ignoratio Elenchi 2, Ignoring the Issue, Irrelevant Conclusion, Irrelevant Thesis
0 kommentar(er)
