4 ms·

I'm assuming it's there because it's a popular bad argument. Well, it's an argument that's often bad. Slippery slopes can actually happen in the real world. Bu

by jarrett 14y ago

I'm assuming it's there because it's a popular bad argument. Well, it's an argument that's often bad. Slippery slopes can actually happen in the real world. But I suppose anyone making a slippery slope argument has the burden of showing that the slipping is likely to occur.

andrewflnr 14y ago
Yes, the burden of proof for a prediction (slippery slope is an instance of a prediction) lies with the party making the prediction. The exact same goes for any argument, and such a prediction should get the same respect as any other potentially flawed argument. If someone is saying "A will cause Z OMG!" without a strong causal chain, the fallacy you want is probably "non sequitur", or you point out what other thing is wrong with their reasoning. But you don't just assume the argument is invalid, as you do with formal fallacies, because slippery slopes are indeed real. At the risk of going too meta, someday am I going to have to deal with some idiot who thinks "slippery slope" is a formal fallacy, because they were all lumped together like this? If the site gets enough traffic, it will get some people who can't tell the difference, who will come away with the wrong impression. Not that many, but the possibility is, IMO, an indicator that lumping them together like this is a bad idea.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  At the risk of going too meta, someday am I going to have to deal with some idiot who thinks "slippery slope" is a formal fallacy... It already happens elsewhere. You can observe an ongoing trend and justify the expectation that it will continue using the motivations and past behavior of the actors involved, and someone will still say, "Slippery slope, I win!"
alok-g 14y ago
Seems like the intention behind including slippery slope in the OP is in itself an example of slippery slope. Maybe what is implied is drawing a fallacious conclusion from an incomplete argument. But if so, it should be replaced with the latter.

by jarrett 14y ago

andrewflnr 14y ago

Yes, the burden of proof for a prediction (slippery slope is an instance of a prediction) lies with the party making the prediction. The exact same goes for any argument, and such a prediction should get the same respect as any other potentially flawed argument. If someone is saying "A will cause Z OMG!" without a strong causal chain, the fallacy you want is probably "non sequitur", or you point out what other thing is wrong with their reasoning. But you don't just assume the argument is invalid, as you do with formal fallacies, because slippery slopes are indeed real. At the risk of going too meta, someday am I going to have to deal with some idiot who thinks "slippery slope" is a formal fallacy, because they were all lumped together like this? If the site gets enough traffic, it will get some people who can't tell the difference, who will come away with the wrong impression. Not that many, but the possibility is, IMO, an indicator that lumping them together like this is a bad idea.

nitrogen 14y ago
At the risk of going too meta, someday am I going to have to deal with some idiot who thinks "slippery slope" is a formal fallacy... It already happens elsewhere. You can observe an ongoing trend and justify the expectation that it will continue using the motivations and past behavior of the actors involved, and someone will still say, "Slippery slope, I win!"

alok-g 14y ago

Seems like the intention behind including slippery slope in the OP is in itself an example of slippery slope. Maybe what is implied is drawing a fallacious conclusion from an incomplete argument. But if so, it should be replaced with the latter.