4 ms·

Slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallacious. If you can justify one more climb on the grounds that probability of injury or death is very low then you

by vojvod 5y ago

Slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallacious. If you can justify one more climb on the grounds that probability of injury or death is very low then you will be able to justify every subsequent climb on the same basis.

mkolodny 5y ago
Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacies. They don't prove that something will happen. Just because you can justify the next climb on the same basis, that doesn't mean you will. You could decide that you've already tested the odds one too many times.
- vojvod 5y ago
  "You could decide that you've already tested the odds one too many times" was the original point. Someone responded that the N previous times don't matter and N + 1 has barely any risk. Another poster countered that that argument as stated applies not just for N + 1 but for (N + 1) + 1 etc and therefore the slippery slope principle applies. Of course if you add in "you could decide that you've already tested the odds one too many times" then it's a fallacy to invoke slippery slope because an off-ramp is explicitly specified. In this case slippery slope was mentioned only because N was dismissed as irrelevant.
- bhuber 5y ago
  Don't get on that greased sliding board that ends at the top of a cliff. Once you start sliding, it will be hard to stop because of the grease, and then once you slide off then end you will fall and die. Do you really think this slippery slope argument is a fallacy? FWIW, wikipedia acknowledges slippery slope can be a legit argument when the slope, and it's chain of consequences, are actually real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope . Indeed, this is the very basis of mathematical induction.
  - mkolodny 5y ago
    From your linked article: > The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense, it constitutes an informal fallacy. "If you take N steps, you will take N+1 steps" is a fallacy whenever it's possible that you won't take N+1 steps.
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      Not what was said. What was said: if you DON'T take the Nth step, you then WON'T take the N+1 step. "Not A -> Not B" is different logic than "A -> B". A is necessary but not sufficient for B.
bear8642 5y ago
>If you can justify one more … Reminds me of Terry Pratchett quote "No excuses. No excuses at all. Once you had a good excuse, you opened the door to bad excuses.” Full quote is fifth here: <https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/819104-thud https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/819104-thud>

by vojvod 5y ago

mkolodny 5y ago

Slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacies. They don't prove that something will happen. Just because you can justify the next climb on the same basis, that doesn't mean you will. You could decide that you've already tested the odds one too many times.

vojvod 5y ago
"You could decide that you've already tested the odds one too many times" was the original point. Someone responded that the N previous times don't matter and N + 1 has barely any risk. Another poster countered that that argument as stated applies not just for N + 1 but for (N + 1) + 1 etc and therefore the slippery slope principle applies. Of course if you add in "you could decide that you've already tested the odds one too many times" then it's a fallacy to invoke slippery slope because an off-ramp is explicitly specified. In this case slippery slope was mentioned only because N was dismissed as irrelevant.
bhuber 5y ago
Don't get on that greased sliding board that ends at the top of a cliff. Once you start sliding, it will be hard to stop because of the grease, and then once you slide off then end you will fall and die. Do you really think this slippery slope argument is a fallacy? FWIW, wikipedia acknowledges slippery slope can be a legit argument when the slope, and it's chain of consequences, are actually real. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope . Indeed, this is the very basis of mathematical induction.
- mkolodny 5y ago
  From your linked article: > The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense, it constitutes an informal fallacy. "If you take N steps, you will take N+1 steps" is a fallacy whenever it's possible that you won't take N+1 steps.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Not what was said. What was said: if you DON'T take the Nth step, you then WON'T take the N+1 step. "Not A -> Not B" is different logic than "A -> B". A is necessary but not sufficient for B.

bear8642 5y ago

>If you can justify one more … Reminds me of Terry Pratchett quote "No excuses. No excuses at all. Once you had a good excuse, you opened the door to bad excuses.” Full quote is fifth here: <https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/819104-thud https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/819104-thud>