3 ms·

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. Kidd

by 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.

by gdubs 6y ago

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.