A formal fallacy is an error in the argument's form, as in a syllogism. All formal fallacies are types of non sequitur. A non sequitur fallacy is where the conclusion does not logically follow the premise. In Latin it means "it does not follow." Or, we might say "it is not deducible from the facts" or from the premises. Red Herring fallacies are not formal fallacies for they do not deal with the structure of an argument. They are rather tactics in persuasion. The Red Herring is rather an informal fallacy. We can also say that some red herrings fall within the genus of ad hominems because personal information about a speaker's argument is irrelevant to the argument.
Red Herrings
AI Overview gives the following about the etymology of the "red herring fallacy."
"The term "red herring fallacy" originates from the practice in fox hunting where hunters would drag a strong-smelling, smoked herring (which appears reddish) across a fox's trail to deliberately confuse the hunting dogs, effectively diverting their attention away from the scent they were supposed to follow; thus, a "red herring" refers to anything that distracts from the main issue at hand, mirroring the action of the fish in the hunting scenario."
A red herring fallacy is designed to "change the subject" or to redirect the question in dispute. It is designed to distract by bringing into the debate irrelevant facts or information. As stated above, it is a way or means of "diverting" attention away from the issue at hand. It is also designed to "shift blame" and is often used by politicians and trial lawyers. Oftentimes this tactic involves using irrelevant comparisons or false analogies.
"These distractions can be made in the form of an emotional response, such as an appeal to fear or anger, or an irrelevant piece of information." (from logicalfallacies see here)
It is an example of information being "beside the point." It is an example of what is called "avoiding the issue."
The very best fox hunting dogs, however, were not distracted by the scent of the red herring. So too those who are familiar with this logical fallacy may be kept from being swayed by it.
Those who intentionally use red herrings only want to win a debate and are not interested in truth or right. That is not to say that everyone who uses a red herring means of persuasion does it intentionally, for some do it out of ignorance or to avoid an issue that one does not want to face or causes dissonance. Sometimes red herrings are not always logical fallacies, as in when a person is simply adding comments to a speech that is somewhat irrelevant. "Red herrings can be used to make a story more interesting or to make a speech more impactful. However, they can also be used to mislead people." (AI) These would be aside comments. Preachers often do this. Sometimes they will get sidetracked from the main message and "chase rabbits." That is not to say that such sidetracks are all bad for they often prepare an audience for the next affirmation, proposition, or explanation. It is a kind of "ad libbing." This is done quite often by those who speak extemporaneously or "off the cuff," or who speak in the manner of ordinary conversation (thus a "homily" or "chat" or "talk").
Said one Christian Internet Site (See here - emphasis mine):
"There are a variety of reasons that red herrings are popular, both in the larger world as well as in churches. I am sure there are more, but here are five reasons that red herrings are popular.
1. Distraction: They divert attention away from uncomfortable or challenging topics, allowing the speaker to avoid addressing the main issue directly. They help in evading direct answers, especially when the speaker does not have a strong or prepared response to the original question.
2. Manipulation: They can be used to manipulate the audience by steering the conversation towards a topic that the speaker is more comfortable discussing or that may evoke a desired emotional response.
3. Confusion: Introducing irrelevant information can confuse the audience, making it harder for them to follow the original argument and recognize weaknesses in the speaker’s position. One would hope that this is less prevalent among Christians, but experience tells me this is still a big issue due to pride.
4. Control: They allow the speaker to control the narrative by shifting the focus to areas where they have more knowledge or feel they have a stronger position. Many online debates on social media utilize red herrings to control the situation.
5. Engagement: Sometimes, they are used to engage the audience in a different, potentially more interesting or relatable topic, thus maintaining their interest and attention. This isn’t always a bad thing, but it can be if the main point of discussion is minimized or forgotten."
When you see a person using red herrings, you can see why. Nearly always it is because he is losing the debate on the merits, or by the logos.
Examples
Many excuses for sin and erroneous ideas are of the red herring variety.
Some early church fathers baptized infants. The fact that some early church fathers baptized infants does not directly address whether the Bible teaches infant baptism. Church history is a valuable resource, but it is a red herring when discussing a biblical text or theology.
If one reads the talks that Job's four counselors gave to him in an effort to discover the cause of his calamities he will then see how they put forth many informal and formal fallacies, including Red Herrings.
Another example is seen in these words:
"Therefore he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, "What does this babbler want to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods," because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection." (Acts 17: 17-18 nkjv)
These Greeks responded to Paul's reasoned discourse (logos) by making an ad hominem attack and by poisoning the well prior to his speaking. Also, this was an example of the red herring fallacy. Notice too the enthymeme implied, i.e. a babbler has nothing useful to say. (See my posting on the Greek word for "babbler" in Thoughts On Acts 17:18)
In my long series titled "God's Elect or World's Elite" I showed how Paul had to confront Sophist ideas that were still retained by the first Christians in Corinth and his letters to the church there show this. As those letters show Paul was criticized by them for being unsophisticated in his public speaking and persuasive skills. Paul alludes to the Sophists when he speaks of "the debaters of this age" (I Cor. 1: 20).
In "Sophistry and the Church: Up to Our Necks in it" by Kirk Durston (See here) we have these words (emphasis mine):
"What is sophistry? ChatGPT defines it as follows,
"Sophistry refers to the use of clever but false arguments, deceptive reasoning, or misleading rhetoric to persuade or manipulate others. It often involves the use of fallacious or specious reasoning that may appear superficially plausible but is actually misleading or illogical..."
In the Bible we see many examples where infidels made illogical arguments against God's messengers. In the previous chapter we gave some examples of this.
Said Durston:
"We are swimming in a world of sophistry and our culture is drowning in it. It is distressing to observe that it is rampant within Christianity as well..."
Got Questions web page (See here) says this (emphasis mine):
"Sophistry is argumentation or reasoning based on falsehood, trickery, or clever wording. A sophism is a fallacious argument, usually relying on a clever method of deception. And a sophist is a person who engages in sophistry; that is, he is skilled in misleading people through circumlocution, equivocation, ambiguity, etc. A sophist has cunning ways of presenting a plausible yet false assertion.
Peter warned against false teachers in the church who would use sophistry to swindle believers: “In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money” (2 Peter 2:3, NLT). Similarly, Paul warned of divisive people whose goal is to mislead: “By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people” (Romans 16:18)."
That is so true! There is so much sophistry today in the political world. But, if it stayed only in that area it might not be so bad, but today it is seen even in areas where it should never be seen, such as in various scientific fields. It is even true in Christian debates about bible doctrine.
"3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water." (II Peter 3: 3-6 nkjv)
Can you spot the logical fallacies in the arguments made by the scoffers? Do you see how Peter rebutted them? First, the scoffers argued that since the coming of Christ has not yet come, it will therefore not come. But, that is clearly a non sequitur. One of the premises in the argument said "since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." Peter showed how that premise was false. The argument upheld the idea known as "uniformitarianism." But, Peter says this "they are willfully ignorant of," for the truth that is ignored says "no, all things have not continued uniformly" and the proof of that is the fact that catastrophes have occurred and have interrupted the steady uniform progression of history of creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment