5 ms·

This should be held up as a visceral demonstration of how the "slippery slope" isn't inherently a fallacy, as many oft like to claim: it is merely a form of arg

by saurik 2y ago

This should be held up as a visceral demonstration of how the "slippery slope" isn't inherently a fallacy, as many oft like to claim: it is merely a form of argument that is easy enough to get wrong--leading to a fallacy when the cause is disconnected--that people have become overly-wary of it, reacting to the premise of the conclusion without even bothering to analyze how steep the slope might be before tuning the idea out :(.

CamperBob2 2y ago
Exactly. It's a fallacy when dealing with logical entities, but humans aren't logical entities.
- ls612 2y ago
  It’s only a fallacy when dealing with logical relations under certainty. Once uncertainty and probability is introduced the slippery slope just is relating Bayes’ Rule in plain English.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Whatever. Point being, calling it a "fallacy" isn't useful or predictive when dealing with people who follow impulses rather than principles.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > It’s only a fallacy when dealing with logical relations under certainty. Incorrect. Slippery slope is an informal fallacy, which applies to arguments based on evidence not logical relations under certainty. But it is a component of the slippery slope fallacy that the implicit premise (that the precondition that is the subject of the argument is likely to lead to the result that is the endpoint of the slippery slope) is inadequately justified, not merely that a slope from the precondition to the endpoint is presented.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  But laws are not human only made by humans and should be logical
nkozyra 2y ago
If you look at it less as "if A then B" and more like "if A then possibly B" as it's usually intended then I think you can strip the fallacy. Almost anything is possible, but even in this case it was never inevitable or inherently true that age verification for X meant age verification for Y. Which means the value - if any - for a slippery slope argument is "consider the possibilities X might open up"
- II2II 2y ago
  It depends upon what Y is. If X and Y require age verification for in-person purchases and age verification is required to purchase X online, it is reasonable to assume that age verification for Y will follow. Some may call that a slippery slope. In reality it is simply a loophole in the law. Either way, it is reasonable to assume there is a bottom to that slope. It is not reasonable to assume that X opens up all possibilities. That said, I understand where the EFF is coming from. Data collection and "sharing" is rampant these days. Any meaningful form of age verification opens up the potential for abuse. What I don't understand is their failure to address how to handle restricted goods.
armchairhacker 2y ago
IMO slippery slope is a fallacy when the small step only supports the big step symbolically, shifting the “Overton Window”. It’s true that the Overton Window has some effect, but we shouldn’t avoid taking a step towards the middle just because it’s also a step towards the opposite bad side, if the middle is good. Wrt. privacy, the real issue is that the small step helps the big step not just symbolically. ID-based age-verification, even when used for good reasons, gives the state and government access to its people’s history of age-restricted content. If this government decides to, say, prosecute anyone who viewed/bought/consumed (inane) X, it’s far easier vs. a government that doesn’t have age-verification. Both governments face major opposition, but the latter government’s opposition is more effective, because the former’s has already shared their history. One thing the article doesn’t state but implies, that I don’t agree with, is: the slippery slope is still a fallacy, when a government first decides to age-gate reasonable X (e.g. porn) then unreasonable Y (e.g. history books). Because said government will receive almost as much opposition and people doing work-arounds for Y, as if they went straight to age-gating Y; although not exactly as much, I generally assume (and hope) the difference doesn't outweigh the benefits of "stepping towards the middle". In the article, X is porn, and Y is facial cream, dating apps, and diet pills. But these things arguably should be age-gated; and even the article’s talking points are not that these are OK for children, but that gating them gives the government data on more people (which is a real slippery-slope, not a fallacy, as explained in the above paragraph), specifically people who don’t watch porn (perhaps some of the readers don’t mind porn viewers being monitored because they aren’t one of them). If states were to actually start age-gating history books, I guarantee there would be serious opposition, including from people who are completely fine with age-gating porn.
- miki123211 2y ago
  IMO the problem isn't ID-based age verification specifically, it's that such verification is usually impelemnted in a way where the service in question gets a lot more data than they need, with no real control over how that data is kept and processed. It would absolutely be possible to implement that stuff in a fully privacy-preserving way, with nothing but basic cryptography, and the government could absolutely enforce that implementation. Nobody is actually interested in promoting that though, the anti-big-tech crowd just wants verification no matter what, and the pro-privacy crowd just wants something to get angry about. Nobody is looking for a reasonable compromise here.
GauntletWizard 2y ago
They no longer teach Rhetoric at schools. Rhetorical arguments have been completely forgotten and debased in the public mind. Rhetorical arguments are more important than ever in the age of AI, because AI is our attempt to simulate that. Probabilistic AI mimics rhetoric (inexpertly). It uses past knowledge to predict future behavior (rather, just the next token) based on probability. To be clear - I'm not arguing that logical argument aren't important; I am a logical person, and prefer logical arguments to rhetorical ones. I prefer the certainty. I still recognize the need for rhetoric. Not everything is certain, and you have to make decisions based on probabilities and unknowns.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  If you saw what modern formal debate looked like in America, you’d be happy that we abandoned teaching it. Here’s the beginning of the rabbit hole you need to go down to understand why so many former debaters not only hate the activity but specifically cite it as an example of post-modern neo Marxism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate)
hot_gril 2y ago
Also why "ad hominem" can be legit. Lawmakers' personal beliefs and incentives say a lot more than whatever generic arguments they pick.
- BrawnyBadger53 2y ago
  This is less true, slippery slope as a fallacy is having large unclear jumps chained together to make a really improbable outcome because each improbable chain scales off all the previous pieces. But ad hominem as an argument is only really valid when the attack against the person is highlighting conflicts of interest, which is more reason for scrutiny of the original argument than it is cause for ignoring it entirely. You should still attack the argument itself.
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    That's what the opponent wants you to do. The law by itself looks ok, but you're dealing with limited information, mainly not knowing how they're going to use it next.
- hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
  Ad hominem is a weird one where the more abstract the argument, the less it applies, but the more concrete and visceral it is the better it is as a first-pass filter. Like, think of the worst guy you know. Now think of what that guy thinks about the state of the world, in as concrete detail as you can. That's probably a pretty good reason in itself not to think that, because if you think like that for too long, you risk becoming that guy yourself. This feels like it should work far less often than it actually does.
dragonwriter 2y ago
The slippery slope fallacy is not just the argument style, it is when the argument style is used by the event being held up as a cause is not justifiably believed to be likely to lead to the cited effect. (It is an informal fallacy, rather than a deductive fallacy, and, as such, requires evaluation of evidence, not mere shape of the argument.) Also, neither deductive nor informal fallacies mean that the conclusion of an argument is wrong, in any case, so the conclusion of an argument being right does not disprove (or even provide strong counterevidence) that the argument contained a fallacy. Fallacies are about whether and to what degree a conclusion is supported by the reasoning (and evidence, in the case of informal fallacies) offered to support it, not about whether or not it is true.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  If we do X, Y becomes more likely. Y is bad, making a bad thing more likely is bad, therefore doing X has a bad consequence. That isn't a fallacy at all, it's just an argument that requires you to establish its premises, like all sound arguments. People call it a fallacy as a pejorative when they want to dismiss the legitimate concern and shut down the debate even in the cases where the premise is correct.
yellowapple 2y ago
Exactly. It ain't a fallacy to call out the folks actively greasing down the slope.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  Grease down a slope, and you'll slide for a day Grease down your self, and you'll slide for a lifetime
heavyset_go 2y ago
You're describing the fallacy fallacy, the fallacy that just because an argument might be an example of a logical fallacy, doesn't mean the claim is incorrect.

by saurik 2y ago

CamperBob2 2y ago

Exactly. It's a fallacy when dealing with logical entities, but humans aren't logical entities.

ls612 2y ago
It’s only a fallacy when dealing with logical relations under certainty. Once uncertainty and probability is introduced the slippery slope just is relating Bayes’ Rule in plain English.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Whatever. Point being, calling it a "fallacy" isn't useful or predictive when dealing with people who follow impulses rather than principles.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > It’s only a fallacy when dealing with logical relations under certainty. Incorrect. Slippery slope is an informal fallacy, which applies to arguments based on evidence not logical relations under certainty. But it is a component of the slippery slope fallacy that the implicit premise (that the precondition that is the subject of the argument is likely to lead to the result that is the endpoint of the slippery slope) is inadequately justified, not merely that a slope from the precondition to the endpoint is presented.
Braxton1980 2y ago
But laws are not human only made by humans and should be logical

nkozyra 2y ago

If you look at it less as "if A then B" and more like "if A then possibly B" as it's usually intended then I think you can strip the fallacy. Almost anything is possible, but even in this case it was never inevitable or inherently true that age verification for X meant age verification for Y. Which means the value - if any - for a slippery slope argument is "consider the possibilities X might open up"

II2II 2y ago
It depends upon what Y is. If X and Y require age verification for in-person purchases and age verification is required to purchase X online, it is reasonable to assume that age verification for Y will follow. Some may call that a slippery slope. In reality it is simply a loophole in the law. Either way, it is reasonable to assume there is a bottom to that slope. It is not reasonable to assume that X opens up all possibilities. That said, I understand where the EFF is coming from. Data collection and "sharing" is rampant these days. Any meaningful form of age verification opens up the potential for abuse. What I don't understand is their failure to address how to handle restricted goods.

armchairhacker 2y ago

IMO slippery slope is a fallacy when the small step only supports the big step symbolically, shifting the “Overton Window”. It’s true that the Overton Window has some effect, but we shouldn’t avoid taking a step towards the middle just because it’s also a step towards the opposite bad side, if the middle is good. Wrt. privacy, the real issue is that the small step helps the big step not just symbolically. ID-based age-verification, even when used for good reasons, gives the state and government access to its people’s history of age-restricted content. If this government decides to, say, prosecute anyone who viewed/bought/consumed (inane) X, it’s far easier vs. a government that doesn’t have age-verification. Both governments face major opposition, but the latter government’s opposition is more effective, because the former’s has already shared their history. One thing the article doesn’t state but implies, that I don’t agree with, is: the slippery slope is still a fallacy, when a government first decides to age-gate reasonable X (e.g. porn) then unreasonable Y (e.g. history books). Because said government will receive almost as much opposition and people doing work-arounds for Y, as if they went straight to age-gating Y; although not exactly as much, I generally assume (and hope) the difference doesn't outweigh the benefits of "stepping towards the middle". In the article, X is porn, and Y is facial cream, dating apps, and diet pills. But these things arguably should be age-gated; and even the article’s talking points are not that these are OK for children, but that gating them gives the government data on more people (which is a real slippery-slope, not a fallacy, as explained in the above paragraph), specifically people who don’t watch porn (perhaps some of the readers don’t mind porn viewers being monitored because they aren’t one of them). If states were to actually start age-gating history books, I guarantee there would be serious opposition, including from people who are completely fine with age-gating porn.

miki123211 2y ago
IMO the problem isn't ID-based age verification specifically, it's that such verification is usually impelemnted in a way where the service in question gets a lot more data than they need, with no real control over how that data is kept and processed. It would absolutely be possible to implement that stuff in a fully privacy-preserving way, with nothing but basic cryptography, and the government could absolutely enforce that implementation. Nobody is actually interested in promoting that though, the anti-big-tech crowd just wants verification no matter what, and the pro-privacy crowd just wants something to get angry about. Nobody is looking for a reasonable compromise here.

GauntletWizard 2y ago

They no longer teach Rhetoric at schools. Rhetorical arguments have been completely forgotten and debased in the public mind. Rhetorical arguments are more important than ever in the age of AI, because AI is our attempt to simulate that. Probabilistic AI mimics rhetoric (inexpertly). It uses past knowledge to predict future behavior (rather, just the next token) based on probability. To be clear - I'm not arguing that logical argument aren't important; I am a logical person, and prefer logical arguments to rhetorical ones. I prefer the certainty. I still recognize the need for rhetoric. Not everything is certain, and you have to make decisions based on probabilities and unknowns.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
If you saw what modern formal debate looked like in America, you’d be happy that we abandoned teaching it. Here’s the beginning of the rabbit hole you need to go down to understand why so many former debaters not only hate the activity but specifically cite it as an example of post-modern neo Marxism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreading_(debate)

hot_gril 2y ago

Also why "ad hominem" can be legit. Lawmakers' personal beliefs and incentives say a lot more than whatever generic arguments they pick.

BrawnyBadger53 2y ago
This is less true, slippery slope as a fallacy is having large unclear jumps chained together to make a really improbable outcome because each improbable chain scales off all the previous pieces. But ad hominem as an argument is only really valid when the attack against the person is highlighting conflicts of interest, which is more reason for scrutiny of the original argument than it is cause for ignoring it entirely. You should still attack the argument itself.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  That's what the opponent wants you to do. The law by itself looks ok, but you're dealing with limited information, mainly not knowing how they're going to use it next.
hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
Ad hominem is a weird one where the more abstract the argument, the less it applies, but the more concrete and visceral it is the better it is as a first-pass filter. Like, think of the worst guy you know. Now think of what that guy thinks about the state of the world, in as concrete detail as you can. That's probably a pretty good reason in itself not to think that, because if you think like that for too long, you risk becoming that guy yourself. This feels like it should work far less often than it actually does.

dragonwriter 2y ago

The slippery slope fallacy is not just the argument style, it is when the argument style is used by the event being held up as a cause is not justifiably believed to be likely to lead to the cited effect. (It is an informal fallacy, rather than a deductive fallacy, and, as such, requires evaluation of evidence, not mere shape of the argument.) Also, neither deductive nor informal fallacies mean that the conclusion of an argument is wrong, in any case, so the conclusion of an argument being right does not disprove (or even provide strong counterevidence) that the argument contained a fallacy. Fallacies are about whether and to what degree a conclusion is supported by the reasoning (and evidence, in the case of informal fallacies) offered to support it, not about whether or not it is true.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
If we do X, Y becomes more likely. Y is bad, making a bad thing more likely is bad, therefore doing X has a bad consequence. That isn't a fallacy at all, it's just an argument that requires you to establish its premises, like all sound arguments. People call it a fallacy as a pejorative when they want to dismiss the legitimate concern and shut down the debate even in the cases where the premise is correct.

yellowapple 2y ago

Exactly. It ain't a fallacy to call out the folks actively greasing down the slope.

Y_Y 2y ago
Grease down a slope, and you'll slide for a day Grease down your self, and you'll slide for a lifetime

heavyset_go 2y ago

You're describing the fallacy fallacy, the fallacy that just because an argument might be an example of a logical fallacy, doesn't mean the claim is incorrect.