In fallacies of relevance, something is or is perceived as unclear in the argument. Now in this video we're going to talk about fallacies of reasoning where the audience perceives the claim to be irrelevant to the matter at hand. So what are a couple of these? Well, we can start with straw argument. Now in a straw argument the audience perceives the speaker to be attacking a fake arguments so here, straw argument's kind of a metaphor. Instead of fighting a real opponent with nuanced views, the speaker just beats up on a straw figure, something that actually can't fight in fact. >> I cannot believe we did not approve the new bike path, Stupid. >> I know it's a drug >> No it's just because people don't like cyclists no it's because they are ignorant of the environmental impact of cars. >> All right, all right dial it back a notch that's a bit much, okay. People probably oppose bike paths for number of good reasons. This is just characterizing those opinions in order to shoot them down. And it's important to remember if you're actually trying to persuade people with whom you disagree you need to be honest about how and why they hold their opinions. You know you need to meet that audience where they are. Now a straw argument is mischaracterizing a position. A red herring raises a distracting argument and we actually have a fairly good case of this in the American experience, Richard Nixon. So Nixon had run for the Senate in 1950 and after his election, he had set up this special fund to support future campaign efforts. This ended up with a travel allowance. He ended up using that allowance in 1952, when he ran for vice president. Now the press reported on this money use as ethically dubious. Spoiler alert, he resigned from the presidency in utter disgrace. But who knows? Hey, that was years in the future. Anyway, back in 1952, he took to the airwaves to defend himself against this campaign fund charge, and he gave himself basically an on-air audit. Now in the course of that audit he mentioned this. >> One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I don't they'll probably be saying about this me too. We did get something, a gift, after the election. A man down in Texas heard Pat on the radio mention the fact that our two youngsters would like to have a dog and believe it or not the day before we left in this campaign trip, we got a message from Union station and Baltimore saying they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was it was? It was a little cocker spaniel dog in a crate that eats all the way from Texas black and white, spotted. And our little girl Tricia, the six-year-old, named it Checkers. And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog. And I just want to say this right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we're going to keep him. >> So obviously the press wasn't really concerned about the gift of a puppy, right? Some saw that reference to Checkers as a complete red herring. Sort of a maudlin attempt to tug at the heartstrings of the public. Now, Nixon supporters probably saw it as a relevant response. And that reminds us again that fallacies exists on the page, but they also exist in audiences' minds. Now, historical importance aside, I think the most shocking part of that entire story is that there was a farmer who just decided to put a dog in a box and ship it thousands of miles on the hunch that the kids would keep the dog. To return to the larger point, if your audience disagrees with you, you need to remember that. It is easy to hear a challenging argument as an irrelevant one. Make sure you explain why your argument is on target. Don't be heard as committing a straw argument or a red herring. [MUSIC]
