but it's easily confused with straw figure.

So here, I want to highlight the differences between the two.

The name "red herring" comes from an old method of training

dogs for fox hunting.

The goal is a train the dogs to follow the fox's scent,

even if the dogs encounter other smells that

are potentially distracting.

So what they do is they got the fox go so the fox leaves

a scent trail.

Then before letting the dogs go, they

drag a bunch of smelly red herrings

across the fox's trail, like this.

Then they release the dogs.

When the dogs hit the herring trail,

they'll be distracted by the smell,

and some will be inclined to follow

the herring trail instead.

So the trainers try to get the dogs to stay on the fox trail

and resist the urge to follow the herring.

So what's what with this metaphor?

Well, the fox is some argument-- the original argument

that is at issue in a debate.

The dog can represent anyone who is interested and engaged

in this argument.

The red herring is something that

distracts you from following the trail of the original argument.

It might be a new and different argument

that raises a different issue or simply

an irrelevant comment that distracts from the main issue.

What's important is that it's distracting enough

to make the audience want to follow this new trail away

from the original argument and the main issue.

So putting all this together, you commit the red herring

fallacy when in an argument you divert attention

away from the main issue or the main line of argumentation

by introducing something that changes the subject, that

raises a new issue that isn't relevant to the proceeding

line of discussion.

The fallacy really occurs when you then conclude something

from this different issue or presume

that some conclusion has been established

and use this to claim that you've won the argument

or said something relevant about the original argument.

In this respect, the fallacy is very much like a straw figure

fallacy in that you are mistakenly or misleadingly

saying that you've won an argument

or refuted an argument when all that you've really done

is avoid engaging the original argument.

But it's different from the straw figure fallacy

in that a straw figure involves distorting or misrepresenting

some original argument and then knocking down the distorted

argument.

In a red herring, the arguer ignores the opponent's argument

and subtly changes the subject.

So to distinguish between the two,

you need to ask yourself whether the arguer has knocked down

a distorted argument or simply changed the subject.

Here is a summary of the points just made.

To illustrate the difference, consider this.

I overheard my friend John argue that the Bible has

errors in it.

Funny, I never figured him for an atheist.

This is a straw figure, not a red herring

since the conclusion being drawn is related to the main argument

that his friend is making about the Bible.

But it's clearly working off of a distorted or exaggerated

version of it if it equates Biblical fallibilism

with atheism.

Now compare that to this one.

My opponent has argued that there's an urgent need

to reduce greenhouse gases in order

to minimize global warming.

But the most serious problem facing future generations

is the risk posed by nuclear weapons in the hands

of rogue states and terrorists.

This is where we need to focus our attention and resources.

This is a red herring.

The original issue was about greenhouse gases

and the urgency of global warming.

This response sidesteps that issue

and introduces a new issue.

To avoid committing a red herring,

the arguer would need to show the global warming isn't

an urgent problem or that reducing greenhouse gas

emissions won't be effective in reducing it--

or something like that.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists

is certainly a serious issue, but that fact

is nothing to undermine the original argument

about global warming.