4 ms·

The slippery slope fallacy (which I see made the list) is often abused in discourse to argue against anyone proposing that A could plausibly lead to B, even if

The slippery slope fallacy (which I see made the list) is often abused in discourse to argue against anyone proposing that A could plausibly lead to B, even if the person thinks there's a fairly low probability of it playing out. I would go so far as to say it's not a legitimate fallacy. People can both overestimate or underestimate the probability that A will lead to B, but we call the former fallacious and not the latter, which makes no sense. If we think that the former should be validly called the slippery slope fallacy then we need a fallacy for the latter too (inertia fallacy? fallacy of lack of imagination?)

gdubs 6y ago
One minute people are judicially applying the Slippery Slope fallacy, and before you know it we’re using it recklessly to dismiss very plausible outcomes. Kidding aside, the point of the Slippery Slope argument isn’t that a chain of events can’t happen or won’t happen - it’s that we can’t assume they will happen.
- hntrader 6y ago
  I get your point on the definitional nuance, but why don't we have a fallacy for people who assume that something won't happen? Or is this also an instance of the slippery slope fallacy - asserting that A necessarily leads to NOT(B) instead of B? Also I believe my other point stands with respect to how this fallacy is abused in common discourse to score debate points, at least according to my experience. In practice, not many commit this fallacy, since everyone except the most dishonest will admit there's a tiny probability that their causal chain won't play out.
  - gdubs 6y ago
    It’s early here and it’s been about 20 years since my logic course in College, but I’ll give it a shot. This is generally the domain of logic as a formal tool for argumentative analysis. In that context, one is trying to nail down whether an argument is valid or not. It’s important for us to make a distinction between what is logically sound, and what is a hypothetical that can’t be proven. It comes down to feels not reals. Logic is reals. It is a formal system. It helps us ground our thinking. A slope may be indeed slippery, if it can be proven that A leads to Z every time. But usually a Slippery Slope is utilized as a way of scaring people into the assumption that A will lead to Z, even when there’s plenty of off ramps along the way. It’s about certainty vs speculation. To say that, “hey if we start doing A we might end up at Z” is not wrong because we say “might”, and it’s worthy of debating the risks and possibilities. But often people present it as a Truth. And it’s fair to point out that it’s neither a certainty, nor logically sound.
darkerside 6y ago
You're falling into a common trap of misassociating logic with truth. They are related, but not 1:1. A logical fallacy does not price something is false, it just demonstrates that an argument is not logically airtight. A statement based on a logical fallacy can turn out to be true. A prediction based on nothing at all can turn out to be true as well. All a logical fallacy means is that the statement will not NECESSARILY turn out to be true.

gdubs 6y ago

One minute people are judicially applying the Slippery Slope fallacy, and before you know it we’re using it recklessly to dismiss very plausible outcomes. Kidding aside, the point of the Slippery Slope argument isn’t that a chain of events can’t happen or won’t happen - it’s that we can’t assume they will happen.

hntrader 6y ago
I get your point on the definitional nuance, but why don't we have a fallacy for people who assume that something won't happen? Or is this also an instance of the slippery slope fallacy - asserting that A necessarily leads to NOT(B) instead of B? Also I believe my other point stands with respect to how this fallacy is abused in common discourse to score debate points, at least according to my experience. In practice, not many commit this fallacy, since everyone except the most dishonest will admit there's a tiny probability that their causal chain won't play out.
- gdubs 6y ago
  It’s early here and it’s been about 20 years since my logic course in College, but I’ll give it a shot. This is generally the domain of logic as a formal tool for argumentative analysis. In that context, one is trying to nail down whether an argument is valid or not. It’s important for us to make a distinction between what is logically sound, and what is a hypothetical that can’t be proven. It comes down to feels not reals. Logic is reals. It is a formal system. It helps us ground our thinking. A slope may be indeed slippery, if it can be proven that A leads to Z every time. But usually a Slippery Slope is utilized as a way of scaring people into the assumption that A will lead to Z, even when there’s plenty of off ramps along the way. It’s about certainty vs speculation. To say that, “hey if we start doing A we might end up at Z” is not wrong because we say “might”, and it’s worthy of debating the risks and possibilities. But often people present it as a Truth. And it’s fair to point out that it’s neither a certainty, nor logically sound.

darkerside 6y ago

You're falling into a common trap of misassociating logic with truth. They are related, but not 1:1. A logical fallacy does not price something is false, it just demonstrates that an argument is not logically airtight. A statement based on a logical fallacy can turn out to be true. A prediction based on nothing at all can turn out to be true as well. All a logical fallacy means is that the statement will not NECESSARILY turn out to be true.