Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Philosophy

<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The final class of informal fallacies is the <OpenstaxTerm>fallacy of diversion</OpenstaxTerm>, which usually occurs in contexts where there is an opponent or an audience. In this instance, the arguer attempts to distract the attention of the audience away from the argument at hand. Clearly, the tactic of diverting attention implies that there is someone whose attention can be diverted: either an audience, an opponent, or both.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Strawman</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Men made of straw can easily be knocked over. Hence, a <OpenstaxTerm>strawman</OpenstaxTerm> occurs when an arguer presents a weaker version of the position they are arguing against to make the position easier to defeat. The arguer takes their opponent’s argument, repackages it, and defeats this new version of the argument rather than their opponent’s actual position. If the audience listening to or reading the argument is not careful, they won’t notice this move and believe that the opponent’s original position has been defeated. Usually when a strawman is created, the misrepresented position is made more extreme. Here is an example:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxBlockquote>
	 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		Senator: It is important that the path to citizenship be governed by established legal procedure. Granting citizenship to undocumented immigrants who came to this country illegally sets up a dangerous and unfair precedent. It could encourage others to illegally enter the country in hopes that they too can be granted clemency at a later date. We must only reward the status of citizenship to those who followed the laws in coming here.
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		Opponent: Clearly, we can reject the Senator’s position, which is obviously anti-immigrant. If he had it his way, we’d never allow any immigration into the country. We are a nation of immigrants, and disallowing people from other countries to join our nation is against everything this nation has stood for historically.
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
</OpenstaxBlockquote>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The opponent misrepresents the senator as being wholly anti-immigration and then argues against that manufactured position—a classic strawman move. The senator’s original argument focuses narrowly on the question of whether to create a pathway to citizenship for people already in the country who came here illegally. The repackaged argument is much easier to defeat than the senator’s actual argument since few people are in favor of not allowing any immigration into the country.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Red Herring</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	A <OpenstaxTerm>red herring</OpenstaxTerm> fallacy is like a strawman, except the arguer completely ignores their opponent’s position and simply changes the subject. The arguer diverts the attention of the audience to a new subject. A red herring is a smelly smoked fish that was used to train hunting dogs to track smells by dragging this fish along a path as practice. So the fallacy gets its name because it means to trick people into following a different path of reasoning than the one at hand. You may wonder how a person can get away with simply changing the subject. Successful use of the red herring usually involves shifting the subject to something tangentially related. Here is an example:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxBlockquote>
	 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		My daughter wants me to exercise more. She said she is worried about my health. She showed me research about cardiovascular fitness and its impact on quality of life for people my age and older. She suggested I start biking with her. But bicycles are expensive. And it is dangerous to ride bicycles on a busy road. Furthermore, I do not have a place to store a bicycle.
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
</OpenstaxBlockquote>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	This arguer first summarizes the daughter’s position that they ought to exercise more. But then they take the suggestion of bicycling and veer off topic (getting more exercise) to the feasibility of cycling instead. The comments on bicycling in no way address the daughter’s general conclusion that the arguer needs to exercise more. Because the argument changes the subject, it is a red herring.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<a href="#table-00001">Table 5.3</a> summaries these many types of informal fallacies.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxTable id="table-00001">
	<OpenstaxThead>
		 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTh>
				General Category
			</OpenstaxTh> 
			<OpenstaxTh>
				Specific Type
			</OpenstaxTh> 
			<OpenstaxTh>
				Description
			</OpenstaxTh> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
	</OpenstaxThead>
	<OpenstaxTbody>
		 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Fallacies of relevance—rely on evidence that is not relevant for logically establishing a conclusion
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Appeal to emotion
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Appeals to feelings (whether positive or negative) rather than discussing the merits of an idea or proposal
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Ad hominem attack
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Argues against someone’s idea or suggestion by attacking the individual personally, rather than pointing out problems with the idea or suggestion
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Fallacies of weak induction—rely on evidence or reasons that are too weak to firmly establish a conclusion
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Hasty generalization
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Draws a conclusion using too little evidence to support the conclusion
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Biased sample
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Draws a conclusion using evidence that is biased in some way
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Appeal to ignorance
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Relies on the lack of knowledge or evidence for a thing (our ignorance of it) to draw a definite conclusion about that thing
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				False cause attribution
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				A causal relation is assumed to exist between two events or things that are not causally connected; “correlation does not equal causation”
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Fallacies of unwarranted assumption—rely on information or beliefs that require further justification
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				False dichotomy
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				A limited number of possibilities are assumed to be the only available options
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Begging the question
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Either assumes the truth of a conclusion in the course of trying to prove it or assumes the truth of a contentious claim
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Fallacies of diversion—rely on attempts to distract the attention of the audience away from the argument at hand
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Strawman
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Utilizes a weaker version of the position being argued against in order to make the position easier to defeat
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				 
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Red Herring
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Ignores the opponent’s position and simply changes the subject
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
	</OpenstaxTbody>
</OpenstaxTable>
<OpenstaxTableTitle>
	Table 5.3 - Types of Informal Fallacies
</OpenstaxTableTitle>

5.5.4 Fallacies of Diversion

1 Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

1.1.1 Historical Origins of Philosophy

1.1.2 How It All Hangs Together

1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?

1.2.1 Sources of Evidence

1.2.2 Logic

1.2.3 Conceptual Analysis

1.2.4 Trade-offs

1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher

1.3.1 “The Life Which Is Unexamined Is Not Worth Living”

1.3.2 Human Wisdom Is Worth Little or Nothing

1.3.3 The Importance of Doing No Harm

1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

1.4.1 What Can You Do with a Philosophy Major?

1.4.2 An Overview of Your Philosophy Textbook

2 Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine

2.1.1 The Brain’s Adaptive Ability to Plan Ahead

2.1.2 The Evolutionary Advantage of Shortcuts

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

2.2.1 Critical Reflection and Metacognition

2.2.2 Cognitive Biases

2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind

2.3.1 Strive for Objectivity

2.3.2 Adopt Epistemic Humility

2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence

2.4.1 Start with a Strong Foundation

2.4.2 The SIFT Method (Four Moves for Student Fact Checkers)

2.5 Reading Philosophy

2.5.1 Prepare to Read

2.5.2 Engaging with Philosophical Texts

2.5.3 Pre-reading

2.5.4 First Read

2.5.5 Close Read

2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

2.6.1 Identify Claims

2.6.2 Collect Evidence and Build Your Case

2.6.3 Organize Your Paper

3 The Early History of Philosophy around the World

3.1 Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.1 Challenges in Researching Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.2 Indigenous African Philosophy

3.1.3 Indigenous North American Philosophical Thought

3.1.4 Mesoamerican Philosophy

3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy

3.2.1 The Vedic Tradition

3.2.2 Classical Indian Darshanas

3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

3.3.1 Early Chinese Philosophical Thought prior to Confucius

3.3.2 Confucianism

3.3.3 Daoism

3.3.4 Mohism

4 The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy

4.1.1 Presentist Approach

4.1.2 Contextualist Approach

4.1.3 Hermeneutic Approach

4.2 Classical Philosophy

4.2.1 Egyptian Origins of Classical Philosophy

4.2.2 Ancient Greek Philosophy

4.2.3 The Presocratics

4.2.4 Socrates and Plato

4.2.5 Aristotle

4.2.6 Epicureans

4.2.7 Roman Philosophy

4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.1 Defining Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.2 Early Jewish Philosophy

4.3.3 Early Christian Philosophy

4.3.4 Islamic Philosophy

4.3.5 Late Medieval Philosophy in Christian Europe

4.3.6 Jewish Philosophers in the Christian and Islamic Worlds

4.3.7 The Rise of Reason in the Early Modern Era

5 Logic and Reasoning

5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth

5.1.1 Dialectics and Philosophical Argumentation

5.1.2 The Use of Reason to Discover Truth

5.1.3 Testing Hypotheses

5.1.4 Laws of Logic

5.1.5 Normativity in Logic

5.2 Logical Statements

5.2.1 Conditionals

5.2.2 Universal Statements

5.3 Arguments

5.3.1 Getting to the Premises

5.3.2 The Difference between Truth and Logic

5.4 Types of Inferences

5.4.1 Deductive Reasoning

5.4.2 Inductive Inferences

5.4.3 Abductive Reasoning

5.5 Informal Fallacies

5.5.1 Fallacies of Relevance

5.5.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction

5.5.3 Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption

6 Metaphysics

6.1 Substance

6.1.1 Fundamentality: The One and the Many

6.1.2 Ontological Perspectives on Substance

Question	Answer
fallacy of relevance that argues against someone’s idea or suggestion by attacking the individual personally, rather than pointing out problems with the idea or suggestion.	Ad hominin attack
the result of an argument. A conclusion is that which is meant to be proved by the reasoning and premises used in an argument.	Conclusion
fallacy of relevance that appeals to feelings (whether positive or negative) rather than discussing the merits of an idea or proposal.	Emotional appeal
a general category of informal fallacies in which an arguer presents evidence that functions to divert the attention of the audience from the current subject of argument.	Fallacy of diversion
a general category of informal fallacies in which an arguer relies on reasons that are not relevant for establishing a conclusion.	Fallacy of relevance
a general category of informal fallacies in which an arguer implicitly or explicitly relies on reasons that require further justification.	Fallacy of unwarranted assumption
a general category of informal fallacies in which an arguer’s evidence or reasons are too weak to firmly establish their conclusion.	Fallacy of weak induction
a property of bad deductive inferences. An invalid inference/argument is one in which the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.	Invalidity
evidence or a reason offered in support of a conclusion.	Premise
fallacy of diversion that ignores the opponent’s position and simply changes the subject.	Red herring
fallacy of diversion that utilizes a weaker version of the position being argued against in order to make the position easier to defeat.	Strawman
a property of deductive arguments where the structure of an argument is such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is guaranteed to be true. A valid inference is a logically good inference.	Validity