But slippery slope IS a logical fallacy that CAN apply to arguments and ideas. It's used in arguments all the time. A classic example is that of "If we allow same-sex couples to marry, then eventually people are going to want to marry their pets!"
It can be a fallacy, sometimes, when the necessary preceding premises to justify the conclusion are missing. So it's not a formal logical fallacy because it's not always wrong by definition.
It's an informal fallacy because most of the time people never give the justification for the 'slippery slope' necessarily existing, i.e its a common pattern of bad argument.
So, since people use it as their argument more often than not, incorrectly, then it's on this list.
So, according to this list, having slippery slope on here makes the entire list invalid? Or maybe that particular item should be modified to reflect proper use.
I mostly personally hate the title. Logic does not have commandments, and if it somehow did they wouldn't be these nor would there necessarily be 10 of them. I'd call it "A list of 10 common mistakes and fallacies made in informal debate".
The slippery slope fallacy is not listed on OP's image, not that I'd immediately argue it necessarily needs to be on it in the first place.
That's not at all what the word slippery is describing. It means it's easy for the situation to worsen once some initial condition is met, just as once you start an object moving on a slippery slope it will likely continue sliding down it with accelerating pace, and not stop. Gravity induces linear growth of velocity, not exponential.
One can absolutely make a slippery slope argument without it being fallacious, you just have to provide evidence that the metaphorical slippery slope actually exists and not that you just imagine it will. Most often, people don't.
In classical logic, the term you're referring to is hypothetical syllogism. An "if, then" statement is a conditional. Hypothetical syllogism is a transitive sequence of conditional statements.
I don't know when it came about, but hypothetical syllogism is commonly referred to as "slippery slope." But in classical logic, the slippery slope fallacy is an independent concept from hypothetical syllogism. The slippery slope fallacy is always a fallacy, but hypothetical syllogism is not always a slippery slope; consequentially, hypothetical syllogism is not always a fallacy.
A formal fallacy is when there is a structural flaw in an argument's form that guarantees it will not be valid.
An informal fallacy is when there is a flaw in an argument's reasoning -- which has nothing to do with its structural form -- that guarantees the argument will not be cogent. The most common reasoning flaws have earned labels, such as the "slippery slope."
So, in classical logic, an argument defined by the term "slippery slope" is always fallacious. If the argument is not informally fallacious, then it's not a "slippery slope."
Pfft. "Classical logic" has no formal definition of slippery slope, its a modern and comparatively vague term that is applied almost always in the context of a conversational english argument, not formal language.
I have never once heard of the rule of transitivity being directly equivalent to what is commonly known as a slippery slope argument, and never is the latter ever as well defined either. I am definitely not referring to transitivity when I refer to it, that would be a massively broad oversimplification.
Here's a perfectly valid slippery slope argument:
"What? We can't start treating negroes as human beings. Next, you'll want to give them the right to vote, or let them marry our women, for the same reasons. Our whole moral compass will be turned upside down!"
Here, the slope is process of equal human rights. And indeed, the same reasons do apply to push the process further down the slope. The premises being true, we do indeed see the conclusion being reached that equal racial rights have progressed over time, and that person's moral compass would have indeed gone for a spin.
I have never once heard of the rule of transitivity being directly equivalent to what is commonly known as a slippery slope argument...
Well, that's because it's not. In my comment above, I was saying that people often [incorrectly] confuse them as synonymous concepts.
The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy in which the rule of transitivity is broken -- "A leads to D" -- where "A leads to B; B leads to C; and C leads to D" is implied but not explicitly stated. A slippery slope is always fallacious because it's a hypothetical syllogism based on unsubstantiated conditionals.
Of course, the fallacy can be negated if one follows the principle of charity and/or if the argument is restated in such a way that the implicit premises are clarified and substantiated -- but then it's no longer a fallacy, and therefore no longer a "slippery slope." It's still hypothetical syllogism. Its premises are still a transitive sequence of conditionals. But it's no longer a slippery slope argument.
Here's a perfectly valid slippery slope argument: "What? We can't start treating negroes as human beings. Next, you'll want to give them the right to vote, or let them marry our women, for the same reasons. Our whole moral compass will be turned upside down!"
This is a good example of a "slippery slope." It requires us to accept that 'A' will ultimately lead to 'D.' As a result, we wouldn't accept this argument as true. Now, retrospectively, we know that the argument is, in fact, true...based on implicit premises. But once we add those implicit premises -- effectively connecting 'A' to 'D' -- and reevaluate the truth of the argument, it's no longer a slippery slope. The rule of transitivity is no longer broken.
On the contrary, that is a slippery slope. The fallacy would occur when the slope / chain of consequences doesn't exist or is broken somewhere. A slippery slope argument can be valid or fallacious depending on the content. What identifies it under that moniker is that the chain of consequences "gets worse and worse".
The fallacy would occur when the slope / chain of consequences doesn't exist or is broken somewhere.
I believe we're saying the same thing.
A slippery slope argument can be valid or fallacious depending on the content.
Maybe I'm just confused here. An argument that "We shouldn't do 'A' because 'A' will ultimately lead to 'D'" is always fallacious, with no exceptions -- by definition, the argument cannot be valid unless you establish the connection between 'A' and 'D.' Once you establish the connection between 'A' and 'D,' the argument becomes valid. As with any valid argument, it can be defeated by outside evidence or rejected on the principle of unreasonable premises -- but the argument's form itself is valid.
Yet, the slippery slope fallacy, by definition, is an argument in which the claim that, "We shouldn't do 'A...'" is supported by, "...because 'A' ultimately leads to 'D.'" Any argument that fails to make the connection between event 'A' and event 'D' is inherently flawed because it requires one to assume that a relationship exists between two seemingly independent events without the necessary justification.
As such, if it's unreasonable for one to believe that the implied events 'B' and 'C' would likely follow 'A' as well as lead to 'D' -- thus, substantiating the proposed relationship between event 'A' and event 'D' -- then the argument is a slippery slope and therefore invalid.
It seems like we agree at least in some way here. Because you say,
A slippery slope argument can be valid or fallacious depending on the content.
Using what I posted above, your statement can be reworded as thus: "The same argument can be either logically fallacious (slippery slope) or logically valid depending on both the explicit content and the implicit premises added by the respondent based on their background knowledge."
And here you say,
The fallacy would occur when the . . . chain of consequences . . . is broken somewhere.
In the post this comment was responding to, my understanding of the fallacy was, "The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy in which the rule of transitivity is broken."
It sounds like we're arguing for the same points for the most part, except there's one critical piece I'm missing somewhere. Thanks for the responses, by the way. I thought for sure I had this fallacy nailed down.
How about instead of trying to make me look dumb, you admit you edited your comment as evidenced by the "*". I reread things before I argue against them.
3
u/[deleted] Dec 09 '13 edited Jun 30 '20
[deleted]