latin name for red herring logical fallacy

Anti-vaxxer - but there are adjuvants in vaccines.

Pro-vaxxer - there is no evidence that aluminum is linked to autism.

Anti-vaxxer - there’s aluminum in vaccines.

Pro-vaxxer - there is no evidence in hundreds of studies that vaccines are linked to autism.

A red herring argument often used would take this form: Example of a red herringĪnti-vaccine activists use this quite a bit in their arguments about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because changing the topic of discussion does not count as an argument against a claim - once again, the only point that should matter in an argument is the quality and the quantity of evidence. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A, even though topic B has no relevance to topic A.The red herring “reasoning” uses the following steps: This fallacy is somewhat related to the non sequitur. The arguer then makes the claim of “winning” the argument by directing the argument from the initial topic to another, often unrelated topic.

The red herring logical fallacy, probably named after an English philosopher who used kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to throw hounds off the scent of the rabbit, is an argument style in which an irrelevant topic is presented in an attempt to divert the argument from the original issue. The logical fallacy of red herring occurs when an attempt is made to divert the discussion away from the point by bringing up some topic that is not relevant.

Latin name for red herring logical fallacy