Talk:Slippery slope/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Calling it a fallacy is POV

Isn't calling it a fallacy a little POV? Yes the term is overused and frequently misused, but haven't there been numerous times when once a certain amount of license had been given, more was demanded? Bagpuss

Bagpuss removed his own question above with the edit summary, "Concern addressed - removing it". But I think that if the concern has been addressed, we'd all like to hear about it. How has the concern been addressed? -- Oliver P. 23:51, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For the record, no; it is not POV to call a slippery slope argument a fallacy. It is an informal fallacy, and not necessarily the case like deduction; but it is still always a fallacy. The belief that it is POV is to commit the fallacy fallacy.Greg Bard (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we be more to the point about what the fallacy exactly is, to avoid some of the debate? I'd propose adding something like this to the first paragraph to clear things up: "The fallacy lies in the expectation that the same argument becomes stronger if it expressed as a series of smaller steps. Or alternately, that the apparent simplicity of any of the logical steps implies the soundness of that step." --98.163.81.149 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed text

Removed the text:

As an argument, it takes the form

If A occurs

B is more likely to occur

The argument is that by making a move in a particular direction, we are starting down a "slippery slope" in which it is likely that we will continue in the same direction (usually deemed by the arguer to be a negative one; hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor). One example is the argument by many civil libertarians that even minor increases in government authority make future increases more likely, by making them seem less noteworthy: what would once have been considered a huge power grab, the argument goes, is now seen as just another incremental increase, and thus is more palatable.

In no reference can I find any support for this usage.

• http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slippery+slope
• http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

etc.

Restoring material. Consult the OED: necessarily is not a requirement; it is merely that the course leads in that direction (whether with probability equal to or less than 1 is not specified). --Delirium 12:58, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

Note also that this is the common usage (outside formal logic circles). Additional citations are plentiful: [1] for one, and I've added an exact quote of the Patriot Act-related one from a Congressman. --Delirium 13:01, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm just going to restate here that I strongly disagree with Delirium's version of the article. The "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy, by definition. --The Cunctator

How so? Consider the application in parenting, where one can successfully argue that giving in to a tantrum precipitates more tantrums. This slippery slope argument is provably true, as we use the same conditioning to acheieve the positive result of using "please" and "thank you" at all times, and no-one argues that the technique in this usage is generally unsuccessful. Particular cases may vary, but I don't see how blanket statements about the fallaciousness of this argument are provable. Lord Dust 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorites

Shouldn't this name be referenced also and it's relation to the heap fallacy?

Falling tree

That's a good example; however shouldn't it be in the "induction semantics" section? CSTAR 06:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. The idea was to demonstrate a situation where slippery slope is uncontestably wrong. Feel free to move it. Deco 01:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good article!

I'd just like to say that the article is quite excellent currently: Much better than both the original version and my fall 2003 rewrite of it. Kudos to whoever did it! --Delirium 08:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Static friction analogy

I don't see how the static friction analogy applies to the slippery slope scheme. Specifically, that section does not explain how that analogy relates the constituent statements in the slippery slope scheme, in the way the other two interpretations do. I invite the person who added that section to provide that interpretation; otherwise I think that section should be removed. --CSTAR 16:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The way I've heard it used is basically as simple as "once you start sliding, it's easier to keep sliding". That is, if a particular tenet is considered inviolable and is never challenged, something akin to static friction is keeping you still. If, on the other hand, you've just made an exception to it, it's now only something akin to sliding friction keeping you from making more exceptions to it. --Delirium 20:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

more precisely , it's hard to stop or reverse the slide; you go faster and faster down the slope and because it's slippery the brakes work poorly. A major reason the argument is used is to warn people that it seems easy enough to stop or reverse at the beginning, but that soon becomes harder and harder, therefore so not stary. RJensen Rjensen 05:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, in that case it seems to be a refinement of the momentum interpretation. In that case, maybe we could make it a subsection of the momentum interpretation.--CSTAR 21:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biased examples

As far as I can see, all of the examples in this article (and specifically the five contemporary examples in the "Slippery slope as fallacy" section) are, in very broad terms, right-wing or libertarian arguments. For balance and NPOV, can we not find an example of this sort of fallacious reasoning by left-wing commentators? Perhaps something along the lines of "If we go along with the Americans invading Iraq, what's to stop them invading Sweden next if they don't like their social policies?" That's not the best example, but do you see where I'm coming from? --194.73.130.132 11:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just reread and realised that I missed the one about a ban on partial-birth abortion leading to a ban on all abortions. I still think the balance of examples given is a bit lopsided, but I don't feel so strongly now I've noticed that one. --194.73.130.132 11:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Every single example in WP could be drawn from the right wing and it still wouldn't be POV, because they are just that, examples; the article isn't about the examples or about political philosophies. And the preponderance of examples of slippery slope arguments by right wingers or libertarians may simply reflect a real world tendency of those folks to use such arguments. NPOV is not at all the same thing as "balance" -- "balance" is a thoroughly bogus concept employed to hide or distort statistical differences; it's just a slightly more sophisticated form of the tu quoque fallacy. -- 71.102.160.109 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you guys need examples, I have thousands of them sitting in my 8-gigabyte flash drive full of policy debate evidence. Trust me, slippery slope arguments come from all sides. How else could I show that providing a tax credit for wind power would lead to coercion, loss of rights, devaluation of life, dehumanization, genocide, nuclear annihilation and extinction? Seriously, I don't know if this issue has been resolved, but coming up with examples is not difficult. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect

This article very poorly defines the slippery slope fallacy. This is a very bad thing given how often I have seen Wikipedia used as a reference for that fallacy's definition. The article portrays an argument as being fallacious because the argument assumes that one event will occur given another (possibly similar) event. What the fallacy actually means, however, is that the logic which leads to an arbitrary conclusion that is subject to being pushed one way or another (as down a slipper slope) is a fallacious argument for that very reason: it's own logic makes it appear arbitrary.

An applied example of the differences between the incorrect definition, and the one I have provided:

The incorrect definition applied: Person A: "Gay marriage ought not be legalized for the reason that, if we change the definition of marriage, what's to stop it from changing even more? Without a fixed definition, why shouldn't people later gain the right to marry themselves, thereby easily gaining the special privileges associated with marriage?" Person B: "That is a slippery slope fallacy because you assume event A will lead to event B."

The correct definition applied: Person A: "I believe that a human fetus twenty-five weeks old should be non-abortable because at this point it appears enough like a human to warrant protection." Person B: "What about week twenty-four and six days? Week twenty-four and five days? Your logic presents itself as a slippery slope fallacy."

The fundamental difference between the two definitions is great, and must be corrected immediately. Wikipedia is becoming widely used and this article should not mislead thousands of people, especially given the weight that definition pulls on many controversial issues. At the very least, some version of the definition I have provided needs to be integrated into the article.

I have attempted to present the above in a politically neutral way by using what would be considered a conservative as well as a liberal slant.

Perhaps you're confusing the slippery slope and the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy is to suggest that a slippery slope exists where in fact none does, such as in your "incorrect" example. It is not the use of an argument which is vulnerable to a valid slippery slope rebuttal. I'm not sure what to make of your other example - a similar argument has been used regarding ages for driving, drinking, and consensual sex - but I've never heard the term "slippery slope" applied to these in this manner. Do you have any examples you could show to help support this? Thanks. Deco 07:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct in that I am referring to the "slippery slope" and not really the "slippery slope fallacy." However, I might add that the title of the article is "slippery slope" and not "slippery slope fallacy" and any attempted search on "slippery slope" lands them at this fallacy. This is still an error meriting correction.

Your point about underage drinking etc. are slippery slopes, and simply because there isn't as much debate whirling around them does not change the fact that they are.

I do recognize a very small blog in which it is stated that a slippery slope is not necessarily a fallacy. My concern rests primarily with the definition at the top of the page, as it does not address what a "slippery slope," the title of the page, is, but only the slippery slope as a fallacy. This is can be quite misleading. If the page is going to include an explanation of the slippery slope as a fallacy, it ought to spend at least as much time explaining the slippery slope as a device (something the article refers to it as only briefly).

That's a good point, really. Although it seems like it's more difficult to write about the slippery slope itself, the article should be more careful in distinguishing the two. You're right that slippery slope isn't always a fallacy (one obvious example: if I blow up one can of gas in a gas warehouse, it will blow up nearby cans of gas, eventually causing them all to blow up.) I'll see if I can do anything to help clarify it. Deco 02:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought the article was very careful to draw the distinction between the use of slippery slope as argument and as fallacy. The prominence of Eugene Volokh's Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope in my view supports the claim that the article does an adequate job of this. It is possible the examples fail in this respect, however.

BTW, the specific instance mentioned above of the correct use of slippery slope as a fallacy,

The correct definition applied: Person A: "I believe that a human fetus twenty-five weeks old...

is the Sorites or the fallacy of the heap. Not all fallacious uses of slippery slope fall under this category. --CSTAR 02:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to write: After looking at it again, I think the article pretty clearly separates the slippery slope itself (The slippery slope as argument) from the fallacy (The slippery slope as fallacy). I tried to add an example discussing an "arbitrary boundary" and how slippery slope can effectively defend against it. I also fixed up the intro where it suggested that slippery slope is invalid. I think this more or less gets at what our anonymous friend is discussing. Deco 02:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is much better. Thank you for the changes. In a nutshell, I would say that a (if not the) primary difference between the fallacy version and the device version is that one supposes that because A has happened, B will happen (the fallacy), while the other asks that if A can happen, what is to stop B from happening (the device). I didn't intend to be anonymous, but my Wikipedia name is Andromedus. Thanks again.

This "gas can" example is not at all an example of a slippery slope. It's a glaring example of the basic problem here -- "editors" have trouble remembering that they aren't authorities and their reasoning is unreliable. Unfortunately, these talk pages are full of this sort of reasoning, which is utterly inappropriate to WP. The role of the editors is to build articles from sources, not from their own minds. -- 71.102.160.109 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Other examples of the need to be specific

Public drunkenness is considered unacceptable not because of particular qualities of drunks such as their smell or poor etiquette, but because of the indirect implications. Drunks are far more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior and can be a danger to transportation even when not driving. This is a correct example of a slipperly slope where the behavior of being drunk in public has a stigma because of where it is known to lead. Drunks cause scuffles and collisions at verifiably elevated rates.

Another example is gun safety. There are a number of basic rules for handling and operating guns which when followed greatly reduce the chance of accidental death. Not following any one of these rules even for a short period of gun handling or operation can result in an accident. Modern firearms are relatively safe and the vast majority of gun owners do not inflict any unintended injuries. Gun safety rules represent a slipperly slope not because an accident becomes likely without them, but because the probability of having an accident is elevated without them and the consequences of an accident are considered unacceptable.

Even though speeding directly causes increased fuel consumption, that is an economic factor mostly in the hands of drivers. The primary reason for speed limits is safety. Skilled drivers know that very high speeds can be safe even with ordinary vehicles on ordinary roads, but increased speed reduces available time for reacting and increases damage done in collisions. Speed laws are held in place by the slipperly slope.

The logic of the slippery slope is correct where risks are well known and understood and incorrect in the absence of strongly established causality. -- M0llusk 11:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussions of undersirable causal consequences are not slippery slope arguments. Slippery slope arguments, as the name implies, hold that there is an inherent tendency to move from one state to a more extreme form of that state -- for instance, gun control leading to gun bans, or legalization of public drunkenness leading to legalization of public sexual intercourse. None of your examples are examples of slippery slopes. Slippery slope arguments are almost always fallacious, because such inherent tendencies do not, generally, exist. -- 71.102.160.109 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrible Article

In the spirit of compromising and not knowing the meaning of "logical fallacy" and its use and context, this article is misleading and not actually clear. Debateint is confused with history and hindsight. If one has never actually debated or studied Logic, you will not understand why it is a logical fallacy.Gary Joseph 05:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it a fallacy, or is it valid? Under the definition of "valid" it says (and I agree) "In logic, the form of an argument is valid precisely if it cannot lead from true premises to a false conclusion. An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true. For example: "All A are B; some A are C; therefore some B are C" is a valid form." So either the slippery slope argument is valid xor its fallicious... somebody is trying to have their cake and eat it two, but doesn't realize the dilemma. ~~

Uh, no, that's a false dichotomy. There's no such thing as "the slippery slope argument" -- slippery slope is a class of arguments, some of which may be fallacious and some of which may not be (although examples of the latter are few and far between). Also, logical validity is not the proper criterion to judge most arguments; for instance, almost no scientific argument is logically valid, because empirical inferences don't necessarily follow from supporting evidence, as David Hume pointed out long ago. -- 71.102.160.109 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Curiousity - what is the opposite to "slippery slope" - same idea but in a positive direction. " A solid plan","sure path", etc - this can be valid or false also I suspect - 159.105.80.141 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The opposite of a slippery slope argument is a slippery slope argument. The logic of the argument doesn't determine what direction is "positive" -- that's a subjective judgment. For instance, the argument that gun controls will lead to gun bans would be seen by some as leading in a positive direction. Same for legalization of drugs, gay sex legitimizing polygamy and beastiality, etc. -- 71.102.160.109 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Static force

That bit about the static force is wrong. The mu is higher, but usually there's no friction force on a static object.

Slippery Slope in Layman's Terms

I think that the discussion page has clarified a few important things, the SS is not necessarily a fallacy, and secondly it is not a paradox. However, for the purposes of those new to Philosopy, could the main article not include a simpler example?

"I do not want to let my daughter out with her friends because her grades will suffer."

If P then Q
If Q then R
If R then S
If S then... X
Q
___________
Therefore X

(If P is let my daughter out, and Q is she will get drunk, and R is end up getting double penny off boys from the school on special measures., and S is end up with a baby., and X is her grades will suffer. Here the utterer is presuming that P will unquestionably lead to X.

Example 2. Perhaps a good layman's example in recent press would be something akin to Theirry Henry leaving Arsenal football club. News of Henry's departure led many supporters to incorrectly conclude that Henry's transfer would bring about the collpase of the club itself. The following is an example of a football supporter making educated guesses, about the future of his club should Theirry Henry leave:

If Theirry Henry leaves Arsenal then the team lose their best player,
If the Arsenal lose their best player then other good players will leave,
If other good players leave then they will lose matches,
If the team lose matches then they won't qualify for the Champions League,
If the team don't qualify then they lose important revenue,
If they lose revenue then they will not be able to pay off debts,
If they don't pay off debts then the board of Directors will be forced into prostitution,
If the board of directors are forced into prostitution then they will have to give 10p suckies.
__________
Therefore Theirry Henry leaving Arsenal means Arsenal's directors will have to give 10p suckies.
__________

This example shows how the speaker reasons that a bad situation will unavoidably result in a far worse one. For the conclusion to be true, it must follow that the first premise will necessarily lead to the second and so on. ArseneWanger (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is egregiously flawed as is...

The term slippery slope *necessarily* and *definitionally* refers to an informal fallacy. To claim that it can sometimes be valid is a mistake and the discussions of validity thus far have shown flaws. The Hypothetical Syllogism (A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C) illustrates the transitive property of the material conditional in a formal context and has *nothing* to do with the fallacy under discussion. The Slippery Slope is an *informal* fallacy, one in which a poorly or insufficiently supported set of contingent causal relationships are put forth -- the transitivity of implication is not at issue, but the fact of the contingent relationship is. Informal fallacies are *not* relevantly evaluated at the level of formal logic -- formal validity implies treating the premises as true, while at the level of informal logic, it is how the truth of the premises is established that is at issue. For example, the tautology "A, therefore A" is perfectly valid in a formal context, but an argument in that form is referred to as circular (taking the conclusion as a premise).

What *is* fair to point out is the colloquial usage of the term "slippery slope", which varies and is often used to 'flavour' an argument. But that is best served by a separate section, not by making erroneous claims that a slippery slope argument can ever be valid.

Khaimaera (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Khaimaera

Not really; English terms often have multiple meanings, sometimes related. It does not "definitionally" refer to an informal fallacy, because the definition of the phrase encompasses other meanings as well. In particular, it's well-established English usage to call the argument "Doing something in the direction of [a] will make it easier to do other things in the direction of [a] later" a "slippery slope" argument, and only a particularly strong linguistic prescriptivism would try to deny that. In descriptive usage, as others have noted in the discussion above, "slippery slope" is a class of arguments, some fallacious and some not. --Delirium (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, *yes* really... The use of the term has come to encompass more, but in the context of logic, rhetoric and philosophy (the category this article fits under), its meaning is quite specific. It does in fact refer to a fallacy by definition. The key feature of the slippery slope is not that refers to a possible contingent chain, but rather that it fails to establish that contingency. It is first and foremost a technical term and, as such, the prescriptive approach is quite justified in this article. The changing pragmatic usage can be addressed in a specific sub-section, disambiguating its wider colloquial usage from its strict technical usage. Khaimaera (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Khaimaera

• After reading the article and this entire talk page, I have to say I am inclined to agree with Khaimaera. The entire article is muddled, apparently due to conflicting, often incomplete understandings of the subject. It would be good to clarify the article and separate strict logical use from colloquial use. In logic, slippery slope arguments are fallacy, by definition. In common use, however, arguments described by the term "slippery slope" have as much validity as the logic behind them - logic which may or may not include any slippery slope fallacies. Rather than devoting so much space so such an unclear explanation, the article should be rewritten to very clearly explain what a logical slippery slope is, and how it is a fallacy, as well as how the term is used in common speech, and that arguments so referred to are not necessarily "slippery slope" fallacies, logically speaking. One could perhaps infer all that from reading the article, but it is not clear or direct.Marshaul (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• It simply isn't the case that the meaning is that specific in the fields of philosophy and rhetoric, unless you mean exclusively philosophy and rhetoric in some sort of stereotyped Philosophy-101 seminar that ignores anything published in the last 50 years. For modern examples that consider both varieties of slippery-slope argument, see, among many others:
  • David Lamb (1988). Down the Slippery Slope. Routledge. ISBN 0709941668.
  • Wibren van der Burg (1991). "The Slippery Slope Argument". Ethics. 102 (1): 42–65.
  • Douglas N. Walton (1995). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. pp. 95-109. ISBN 080582071X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
• --Delirium (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Always a fallacy?

Is this argument always a logical fallacy? Consider the following specific moral conflict as an example:

• Premise
  • A society exists
  • In this society, premarital and extramarital sex is punished by severe means (exile, death, etc; destruction of life or quality of life)
  • As a result of punishment, all persons in society are assumed virgins upon marriage, and assumed to remain faithful
• Stimulus
  • Society decides the given punishment is too severe for a single early life mistake
  • Judgment is left up to peers on whether to accept a non-virgin spouse
• Result
  • Individuals have the freedom to have sex without immediate repercussions
  • Individuals now have personal experience on which to base judgment of others against themselves
  • Society becomes more accepting of premarital sex by nature
  • Premarital sex becomes commonplace

This is a simple cause-and-effect: by removing the moral enforcement from society, the punishment for this behavior is immediately reduced. This leads to the punishment being naturally reduced further over time. This eventually leads to the complete moral destruction of society in this facet. This gives a serious choice between detrimental, draconian enforcement and a societal change away from established and accepted moral base (both choices are considered destructive).

That is a slippery slope argument, but one that will always hold true for psychological and biological reasons. In our society today for example, we even accept open relationships (TV shows have centered around this; Facebook allows it as a relationship status; it's considered a serious relationship model in the real world), while previously "swingers" seemed to be extraordinary, moral-less people similar to porn actors-- and these days I think most people would be impressed if they found out their friend was a popular and recognized porn star.

What do we call such arguments that do form a logical argument? --John Moser (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because something's a logical fallacy doesn't mean it's always wrong. Hanxu9 (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is more or less what the "non-fallacious" arguments section and the article by Volokh discuss. It's an argument based on contingent facts about the world, rather than based on logical necessity. The controversy seems to be that the classical technical use of the term "slippery slope" in formal logic means something more specific, but as a descriptive matter the arguments you refer to are also called "slippery slope" arguments. --Delirium (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

"A causes B. Therefore A is B."

Does this fallacy count as slippery slope? If not, then what is it? 69.158.126.206 (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We call that "Orwellian Logic." Thoughtcrime causes death; therefor thoughtcrime does not cause death, but thoughtcrime is death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.225.33 (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not use non-political examples entirely?

This article appears to mostly use examples from "a to-do list" for one of the following: Democrats, left-wing minded populations and the overly-liberal. Since classical liberals, conservatives, libertarians, objectivists and Ayn Rand fans, in general, could easily show how so-called experts in "critical thinking" and/or logic use these examples for a "bandwagon effect" to stereotype anyone that touches up against said examples as partaking in fallacy, THEN WHY NOT USE ONLY SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLES THAT CAN BE VERIFIED!?

This article is way too POINT-OF-VIEWish to be a serious piece of academic work; and, if you have a problem with a neologism with a -ish suffix, then you might be too closeminded to see my point, as you might be the same type of person that believes Bush is sooo stupid because he pronounces his middle-initial as DUB-WUH, compared to DOUBLE-U. Keep in mind, truly insane persons are NOT AWARE of their insanity and the normal people only fear that they MIGHT BE insane. Given that, soooo, do you believe yourself to be free of stereotypical thought, or not?

Signed, "AVERAGE JOE THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER"

P.S. Now, let the endless mischaracterization begin, but I have said my piece or peace? Again, if my use of piece/peace bothers you, then maybe you need to examine your conscience. And, yes, I had to question myself, just like Helen Hunt did in AS GOOD AS IT GETS, to spell CONSCIENCE. By the way, this is what is meant when people view the left side of humanity as being ELITIST; and, if you are buggin (I'm so hip-hop) about my use of CAPITALIZATION, then you have proven my point. Said another way, this article appears elitist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.74.221 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Natural Progression vs. Political Strategy

The slippery slope fallacy only applies to natural situations. When we use the phrase "slippery slope" to describe a politicized social issue we aren't talking about a natural progression. We are talking about a political strategy. I'm thinking of that silly story that if you heat a frog/lobster slowly, it doesn't know it's being boiled alive.

When did education become equal to Elitism? Dreadfullyboring (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Volokh

I disagree with the inclusion of Volokh's "gun registration leads to gun confiscation" example, as it is politically charged and does not fully address the argument. While, out of context, those six arguments to demonstrate a logical fallacy, the arguments are not made without a certain amount of context and precedence. Those points are demonstrative as to how gun registration has--in the past-- led to confiscation. I think a new example should be found. Jmclark (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As no one has commented, I am either going to remove the Volokh example or add an edit to clarify its error unless someone says otherwise.Jmclark (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I edited it, and someone took it out saying it was irrelevant. Can there be a discussion on the subject before declaring something irrelevant? The Volokh "Gun Registration" example is politically charged and somewhat misleading in scope. The problem with this "slippery slope" is that it's refutation fails to acknowledge that the argument that A will lead to B is based on the fact that A has historically led to B. Somehow, I feel that ignoring the historical precedent is a logical fallacy, in and of itself, even if it is not a formal one.

Let's put it this way: say I set a glass cup at my feet and hold a 50 lb. weight over it. Then I say that I should not let go of the weight because it will fall and crush the glass. That is, strictly speaking a slippery slope fallacy, is it not? However, we all know that in that situation, my statement is still true, because objects that are not supported fall down, this has been repeatedly tested and proven true. It has also been repeatedly shown that a falling 50 lb weight will crush a glass cup. Therefore, while my statement might be a "fallacy" it is still true. The same thing goes with the Gun Registration example; the argument can be made (is made) that registration leads to confiscation because registration always leads to confiscation. Jmclark (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize this edit was motivated by a post on the talk page, or I would have responded here, first.

The thing is, while gun control is a politically charged issue, this particular statement is not--it's just a fallacy. There is no precedent for gun control "leading" to gun confiscation, nor is there a logical connection. More importantly, both pieces of legislation would have to pass through the same process. If that process is capable of passing the latter legislation, there is no need to pass the milder gun control first. It is simply the wrong way of looking at politics.

To put it another way, whether or not the government will confiscate guns is entirely independent of prior legislation to regulate them. Perhaps a connection could be made if one supported a "winners win" view of political capital (few do), but it would be pretty sketchy, and if such a connection could be made, this would cease to be the fallacy Volokh is describing. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The confiscation of firearms has rarely even happened suddenly (like most things in a political process). It has mostly been preceded by increasing controls over them. List of registered firearms have been routinely used to identify firearms for confiscation. It happened in Germany, Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, Guatamala, Uganda, Rwanda and New York. I want to say that it also happened in China, Turkey, and Russia; however I cannot conclusive determine the connection between their registration and confiscation systems right now. My point should be clear and can be simply verified with a little time researching the subject. The full argument that Volkh is quoting is: "Gun registration will lead to confiscation because gun registration has led to confinscation." Look on any RTKBA website that discusses the subject. I stand by my earlier assertion that the example is politically charged and a better one should be found. Jmclark (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But can't you see that that isn't a causal link? Obviously most countries that have confiscated guns (and I STRONGLY doubt your claims for most of these countries, though I have better ways to spend my time than researching them) first restricted them. Most of these politics stem from majority rule, and the majority will change gradually. It doesn't happen that one day the majority wants no control whatsoever over guns and the next day completely confiscate them. However, the reason the majority changes its mind is in no way based on the early regulations. For analogy, consider an ice cube in an oven. The water first melts, then boils. By your logic, melting leads to boiling because of historical precedent, and therefore we shouldn't melt ice before drinking it lest we scald our mouths. This is clearly false. Rather, the same change that caused the water to melt eventually caused it to boil.

And when you list all those countries that eventually confiscated guns, you forget about all the countries that have some regulations on arms but do not confiscate them--namely, every other country. Eebster the Great (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this argument lies in causation. Registrating guns is often a sign of government's trying to crack down on guns anyway, thus while registering guns and confiscating guns might be correlated, you can't really argue that there is a causation between the two, as you don't need to have guns registered to confiscate them. 150.203.110.137 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put my hands up in defeat on the issue and go have some tea. Correlated != Causation, fair enough; I stand corrected. Jmclark (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I know you're trying not to feed the troll but it is a shame you gave up TBH. Correlation does not equal casuation and as has been pointed out above there is no correlation here as there are plenty of other countries that have registration without confiscation. Either way this is irrelevant. So what if there is a correlation. a) What the hell has this got to do with the article? The whole gun control right-wing nut job section stands out like a sore thumb in the middle of the article as a whole and b) What exactly is wrong with registration leading to confiscation? If you like correlation so much look at the huge drop in deaths from guns in countries where they are illegal. But of course as Bill Hicks said you can't you're incapable of seeing the clear link between having a gun and shooting someone (or you child shooting themselves) and not having one and not doing so. Too caught up on the imaginary intruder with an AK 47 that you'd be too scared to shoot and would turn out to be your teenage kid sneaking in having lost their keys if you did. The absolutely silly section on guns really has no place here. Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.62.48 (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In Need Of Review

Reading the below discussion and looking over the main article, I have to admit the current article merits improvement. Fundamentally, at least one of the editors appears either unable or unwilling to understand that the slippery slope is not always a fallacy (depending on how its user means to use it).

Look at it the following way: The slippery slope as a device, or argument, generally states that because A can be allowed to happen, and B has the same qualifying attributes as A, B ought also be considered allowable. That is the actual logic that is inherent in the slippery slope argument, and is in fact what causes it not to be a fallacy (when used properly). The article currently states that "While the logic in a slippery slope argument is invalid, its conclusion may still be true," it would more often be correct to state, "While the logic in a slippery slope argument is sound, its axioms may still be untrue."

The key is that a person using the slippery slope as a device is inherently arguing that the qualifying attributes of two phenomena are identical - that understanding encompasses the axioms that are generally false, but the logic itself is perfectly sound. Please review the article, particularly its first few lines, with this in mind. 98.145.194.250 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proof of slippery slopes

I have no doubt that slippery slopes appear in nature, such as rube goldberg devices, evolution and so on. However, slippery slopes seem to concern themselves with human behaviour, and that one behaviour will lead to another. I suppose you could argue that addiction is a example of a slippery slope. Another would be relationships lead to marriage. However, these still don't strike at the heart of the problem, which is that one thing leads to another, seemingly unrelated/partially unrelated thing, like pornography to mass murder or gay marriage leading to the acceptance of pedophillia or videogames to violence or legalising euthanasia permitting outright suicide or taking pot leading to harder drugs. However, these ones are all pretty dubious if not complete bullshit. Is there any proven slippery slopes where causation is about 50%? 150.203.110.137 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Inevitability vs. Probability

During the course of an online discussion with another person about the slippery slope fallacy, I pointed out that the slippery slope fallacy does not apply to arguments in which one speculates about some level of probability as to the likelihood of a given causal chain based on past observations. The other discussant, 99.148.39.5, decided to update this Wikipedia entry with that very phrase as a definition of the slippery slope fallacy. I have removed it, because the fallacy entails an argument of inevitability, not of probability based on experience. I leave this note here for the record, if somebody else in the Wikipedia community wishes to make an alternate call. Eric.d.dixon (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the main problem

I almost don't care what the real logical historical true meaning of a "slippery slope argument" is because 99% of the people who use the term do not know what the real logical historical true meaning is (I don't).

People use it to mean "precarious" in some sense and our Wikipedia article needs to state this up front.Gyoung572345790234789 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit sorry, I don't think this sentence makes sense (also the thin end of the wedge, sometimes misstated as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.93.214.80 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition

This article has been improved dramatically since I last visited. I want to thank whoever it is that put so much time into understanding and establishing the nature of the slippery slope as a logical argument, and all the ways in which it can appear. The only major problem with the article as it stands now is in its initial definition, which is that the slippery slope "is a classical informal fallacy." That statement is made as if it were the whole story, after which the article goes to great pains to (correctly) establish that the slippery slope may be used as a logical argument (a bit of a paradox since a fallacy is inherently illogical). Even the italicized writing just below the article's title states "This article is about the logical argument." If this is the case, then why is the definition so narrow? It should at least be generous enough to define the slippery slope as something which may manifest itself either as an informal fallacy, or a logical argument. The article successfully establishes that the slippery slope may be a logical argument, let's just be sure we get some gist of that into the definition.

I find this important because so many readers will potentially only skim this article for its definition, if that is all they need, and it saddens me to see such a great article summarized by such a narrow, downright incorrect definition. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.22.219 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverse Slippery Slope?

There is a recurrent fallacy of saying that the slope should completed once begun. Here are a few examples:

- "We've already sunk $## million into that bridge to nowhere. Therefore we should keep spending the money to finish the job."

- "We've lost 50,000 troops in Vietnam. Therefore, we should stay in Vietnam so those deaths won't be in vain."

- "I've spent 20 years of my life working as an underpaid community theater actor trying to get my big break in Hollywood. Unless I keep on trying, those 20 years will have been wasted."

Should this reverse slippery slope argument be added? Hanxu9 (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Those would be examples for the Sunk costs or Sunk cost dilemma pages, I think specifically the "loss aversion and the sunk cost fallacy" section of the former, but I think it probably has enough examples already. sorsoup (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily a fallacy

The "Slippery Slope as Fallacy" section basically states that the heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. Slippery slope fallacies occur when a string of premises are taken as a given and each contingency is not factually established -- an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy. Then, an argument that supports the relative premises and factually establishes each contingency would be a non fallacious slippery slope argument, wouldn't it? What else would you call this than a slippery slope argument? Now, given that a possibility exists that a person may not establish the factual nature of each new conjecture, I can certainly see that some slippery slope arguments are fallacies, but I cannot see an argument being made that all slippery slope arguments are fallacies. Banaticus (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The key is being able to show step by step how A leads to Z. The fallacy comes in when it's assumed that A automatically leads to Z. Hanxu9 (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias

I actually agree with this article *however* - - It's CLEARLY biased. I'm sure there must be PLENTY of logicians out there who have argued that the "Slippery Slope Argument" is valid. Those (incorrect - lol!) opinions should be included as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not always a fallacy

I question the description of the "slippery slope" as always a informal fallacy. Take the following generic example: A leads to B then C then D and so fourth until you end up with Z. Since Z is bad you thus don't want to allow A due to the slippery slope problems. Assuming you have little or not evidence to support A to B then C and so fourth then then idea that A leads to Z is fallacy. Now let's take a slightly different example: Now let's say that A could lead to B then C then D and so fourth until you get to Z, a negative outcome. but you also recognize it could also lead in several other non-negative outcomes. If you argue that the evidence supports the likelihood in your opinion of A leading to Z or that the mere possibility of A leading Z is justification enough to argue against A, say under the precautionary principle, then it's not really a fallacy in case, right? In the article it presents one type of slippery slope argument that is describe as not a fallacy as quoted here "Some claims lie in between the two. For example: "If we accept censorship on most disgusting material, the politicians may easily widen the area under censorship. This has happened often before too, with far-reaching consequences. Therefore, we should completely avoid the slippery slope of censorship." This claim is not a fallacy: some people think that there is enough evidence for the claim to be probably true, some not.". My second example fits the type of the non-fallacious use of of the concept that the above quote from the article describes. Thus I think rather then describe a slippery slope argument as always as a "classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy." We should make it clear then depending on how the argument is framed it can be an informal fallacy. If your argument if more that it COULD lead to a slippery slope and not that it WILL lead to one then it's more of an application the the precautionary principle. Thus I would restate it as "...classic form of argument, which depending on how it's used, can be an informal fallacy." or something along those lines. --Cab88 (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This entry is terribly biased.

This reads more like an anti-gun argument than an objective presentattion.

I'd suggest that if the author wants to discuss the merits of the slippery slope argument, they use some other example othar than gun righs, gay marriage, abortion or some other contentious issue. That way it would seem lmore like an educational exercise and less like a chance to make political points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassetman4 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A right winger and a left winger are debating gun control. The left winger says that if we allow duck hunters to have shotguns, the next thing you know we'll turn around and find ourselves allowing crimials to drive around in Abrams tanks. The right winger says that if we don't allow everyone to have as many machine guns as they would like to amass, then the next thing you know they'll be coming after the duck hunter's shotgun. Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs simplifying

Even the simplified version for laymen is quite opaque. I mean what does "end up getting double penny off boys from the school on special measures" mean? Isn't that contrary to the goal of simplification? geez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.145.175 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Most fallacies are not always fallacies

To some of the comments here --

For something to be a logical fallacy, the weight of the argument has to rely on the mere statement of a fact; as if the statement makes it a fait accompli. If you're using "argumentum ad populum", for example, its a fallacy because you're arguing that something is true because its popularly opinion, but its not a fallacy to argue that people believe something for a reason. If you're using "argumentum ad verecundiam", its a fallacy because you're arguing that something is true because experts say so, but its not a fallacy to argue that there's a reason to trust a particular expert. If you're using "argumentum ad hominem", its a fallacy because you're arguing that something is wrong because of the person who is saying it, but its not a fallacy to argue that the person you're referring to is untrustworthy.

The same thing applies to "slippery slope" arguments.

Most slippery slope arguments are arguments that we need to maintain a certain social, moral, political, or legal culture, which respects established principles, and that certain policies may serve to undermine those principles if not rationally justified but simply enacted out of convenience or pressure. The argument isn't that the end result is inevitable but that opposition is necessary to defend the original principle. None of Volokh's arguments for example establish some type of irrevocably or inevitability -- he never says that once gun registration is enacted, it can never be reversed, and that confiscation is a done deal. But they establish a reason to express continued critique of the original policy, on precautionary principle, as stated by Cab88 above. The same thing has remained true for arguments by social conservatives. Some continue to maintain that no-fault divorce was the beginning of a slippery slope -- that the policy change led to a cultural change -- and if they believed it was true that changes were irrevocable, they would give up, since it would be a lost cause. The second most common form of slippery slope arguments are in the form of suggesting that a certain policy represents some form of social undermining or "moral undermining", in that it undermines certain types of relationships or values over others in society, or other "structural undermining", in that a policy change will alter the purpose of the law from its original intention into something else, and so the law will no longer serve the intention. Examples may be conservative views about marriage and sex affecting social values; or liberal arguments about having a culture of tolerance or having public services preferred over private services.

If a "slippery slope" expressed as a fait accompli, in that accepting one thing will immediately, inevitably, and irrevocably lead to accepting something else, then its as much of a fallacy as the other fallacies. (Unless of course, its really a "reductio ad absurdum" in the form of a slippery slope argument, which is pretty common.) Most actual slippery slope arguments don't claim that type of inevitability and irrevocably though. Brianshapiro (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely incorrect. A fallacy is always a fallacy, however the conclusion argued for may still happen to be true in the case of informal fallacies. Please see fallacy fallacy. Greg Bard (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of the fallacy fallacy, but of probabilistic versions of the slippery-slope argument not being a fallacy (with appropriate evidence), whereas classical-logic versions are. The probabilistic version argues that action A will increase the probability of action B happening in the future because it starts a movement down a "slippery slope" where further movement thereafter has less friction, which may in fact be true, depending on the underlying mechanisms of how change happens in a particular domain (this requires, of course, some kind of model of such). Volokh's article discusses some of these mechanisms. --Delirium (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting. If you want to get probability involved, then every informal fallacy is no longer a fallacy. The issue is the argument form. That is all that is required to make it a fallacy. If someone can come up with improbable examples of someone using the slippery slope form of argument, and the conclusion being true, it still is a fallacious argument form.Greg Bard (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the point of contention is that "slippery slope" can refer to both a logical fallacy and to a subjective characterization. Imagine the reverse of the fallacy fallacy - just because something is a logically sound causation, doesn't mean you can't also subjectively call it a slippery slope. --98.163.81.149 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The right way to word the issue is this: "Slippery slope" is the name of a fallacy. Common usage has adopted the word "slippery slope" to describe informal inductive arguments that are not obviously fallacious, since they are often somewhat more specific about the assumption of a causal link between two events than the slippery slope fallacy. There are two senses of the word "slippery slope," but as with all words with multiple senses, it's important to indicate the conventions of specific fields in identifying how these senses are used. E.g., the article should be clear that "slippery slope" in the context of informal reasoning is the name of a fallacy, not whatever you "subjectively" want it to be. If we start calling every pitiful causal argument a slippery slope, then eventually we'll start calling every justified belief a true statement and every strong argument a valid one. Things will implode, and words will cease to mean anything anymore.74.232.71.202 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

When an argumentative form is a fallacy, it's always a fallacy. The individual statements in it may all be true, but the nature of a fallacy is to lack validity. Soundness isn't even on the table.

A great many "slippery slope" arguments do in fact have validity and are not fallacies. Therefore, this should not be described as strictly being an undisputed fallacy. It has serious defenders [2] and clearly deserves better than this treatment. A section on "Fallacious use" would be more appropriate than defining slippery slope as a fallacy in the opening sentence. --BenMcLean (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a breif look at that UCLA paper, and it is mainly about legal reasoning. The thing to realize is that fallacies are argument forms, not particular arguments. The argument form known as the "slippery slope" is ALWAYS a fallacy, even if we are able to construct particular arguments which are valid within them. If you can find some "serious defenders" from within the community of academic logicians, then we would have a major development in this discussion. If we are to find and identify all the counter-examples of informal fallacies, and name them as argument forms, then basically there just would be no such thing as an informal fallacy. Is that the idea here? Shall we go through every informal fallacy article and show that they really aren't fallacies? Greg Bard (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ben, I don't dispute that a fallacious argument form is always a fallacy. The point that I was making was that when the phrase "slippery slope" is used in common usage, it doesn't have to refer to the argumentative fallacy. It's not a fallacy if you make a "slippery slope" claim with the understanding that the result is not a logical necessity. Also, there's no reason why someone couldn't take a perfectly logical argument and use the words "slippery slope" to describe it simply because the outcome is an unpleasant and eventual result of a seemingly innocuous initial step. Neither of these examples would be a usage of the "slippery slope" argument form.--98.163.81.149 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I don't believe that the academic logic community has much respect for the idea of "informal fallacies" at all. They are more often seen as an unfortunate sort of wishy-washy precursor, from the days before philosophy got much rigorous logic injected into its midst. --Delirium (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Ben's claim above, that "fallacies are argument forms," is misleading. Slippery slope arguments are informal fallacies. Here, "informal" isn't a synonym for "casual"; it's a clue that what's wrong with these arguments isn't their logical form. The logical form of an argument is the inferential relationship between its premises and its conclusion. Slippery slope arguments are often stated in such a way as to preserve some kind of inferential validity. For instance, "If we allow A to happen, then we will allow B to happen. B is bad. Therefore, it would be bad (at least in some sense) to allow A to happen." Apart from some minor quibbling (In what sense would allowing A be bad? Just in the sense that it would result in B. We don't know just from this argument that the goodness of allowing A doesn't outweigh or otherwise override the badness of allowing B), this argument has a valid inferential form. Note that there are other informal fallacies that have perfectly fine, even deductively valid, forms. For instance, begging the question is fallacious because it assumes what is at issue, not because it does not state a valid inference. "A and B, therefore A" is a valid logical form; it just assumes what's apparently at issue (whether or not A).

The problem with the slippery slope example above is its first premise. Often, statements like "if we allow A to happen, then we will allow B to happen" have intuitive rhetorical plausibility when we think of them as supported by parity of reason. For instance, the classic slippery slope argument "if we allow gay people to marry, then we'll have to allow incest and bestiality and..." gains whatever rhetorical plausibility it has (or had, back in 2004) from the assumption that parity of reason commits us to allowing incest and bestiality if we allow gay marriage. (Sorry if anyone finds this analogy offensive, by the way. It's a classic example of what's wrong with slippery slope arguments, and I think logic should to some extent help us reason in the real world.) But even if it were true that parity of reason commits someone who accepts A to accepting B (something usually asserted, but not argued for, in uses of the slippery slope fallacy), that wouldn't be enough to support the claim that if we allow A, we will allow B, for the simple reason that often people don't consistently apply the same judgment to (possibly superficially) similar cases. Anyway, I know this is all original research. I'm not suggesting we include it in the article, although I'm sure this is consistent with most critical thinking textbooks. These comments are offered in case they clarify the debate on this talk page regarding whether or not slippery slope arguments are fallacies. Short answer: they are, but they're not formal fallacies.2601:B:C580:2D9:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Poorly sourced

I removed an unsourced section. The entire article has only one reference. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)