The Trick of Diversion
There is a category of fallacies that I’ll call ‘Diversion,’ (as does Schopenhauer – see below) and which includes changing the subject, ignoratio elenchi, red herring, misdirection, avoiding the issue, irrelevance, clouding the matter, beside the point, etc. Why so many names? Probably because it’s a common trick. It even shows up in law courts as the “relevance objection.” Its commonness, however, does not save it from being a mistake in reasoning and, if intentional, a piece of legerdemain.
The trick is this:
Someone is faced with defending a case he knows he cannot win. What does he do? He changes the subject in hopes of diverting attention from the matter at hand. Why? To abandon the argument before his loss becomes obvious. To what end? Cui bono? This move enables him to save face and, if his opponent and audience are none the wiser, perhaps to appear to secure the winning position – though in fact he has lost.
The irony is that using such diversion is a tacit admission to losing the argument. Yes, in this case, using is losing. But most folks have never studied logic and so don’t realize what has happened, allowing the loser to rescue his reputation for reasoning, at least in the eyes of the unknowing – though not with the person who understands that a trick has been played. (Note: this is a reason to teach informal logic in elementary, middle, and high school; the trick is less likely to work if more folks understand logic – at least its informal side.)
Here’s how Schopenhauer describes the “stratagem”:
“If you find that you are being worsted, you can make a diversion—that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else …
The diversion is mere impudence if it completely abandons the point in dispute, …
How very innate this trick is, may be seen in every quarrel between common people…In war, diversions of this kind may be profitable; but in a quarrel they are poor expedients.”
(The Art of Controversy, Stratagem XXIX)
Now, to be fair, some folks who engage in diversion know not what they do. They don’t realize that they are changing the subject and/or are unaware that such distraction can be used as a conversational trick. These folks are ignorant of the rules of argumentation and are reacting in the heat of the moment. The move is “innate,” as Schopenhauer notes.