No. 281 · Evidence · Fallacy
Red Herring Fallacy
The most persuasive answer is sometimes an answer to a different question.
In the Almanac
“Cobbett’s smoked fish”, 1807 · “Juul”, 2018–2022
Both stories in full, three ways to use it and where it misleads.
Get the AlmanacListen · Watch
Questions
What is Red Herring Fallacy?
The Red Herring Fallacy is changing the subject to something irrelevant so the real question goes unanswered. The term traces to William Cobbett's 1807 tale of a smoked fish dragged to throw hounds off a trail. Juul's talk of adult smokers arguably sidestepped youth vaping.
How do you avoid Red Herring Fallacy?
Keep the original question visible, and when an answer drifts, ask it again plainly. Check your own replies too: are you answering, or changing the subject?
When does Red Herring Fallacy matter?
Red Herring Fallacy is one of the 68 mental models for evidence, the situations where you ask: Is this really true? Within that, it belongs to “Spotting a bad argument”, alongside Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Emotion.
What is an example of Red Herring Fallacy?
Two stories show it at work: Cobbett’s smoked fish (1807) and Juul (2018–2022). Both are told in full in The Mental Models Daily Almanac, which has two stories for each of its 365 models.
Which mental models are related to Red Herring Fallacy?
Strawman Fallacy, Framing and Proximate vs Root Cause. Red Herring Fallacy itself comes from fallacy.