Talk:Slippery slope

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)

---

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] (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slipperymag.pdf) 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

Contents

1 Sorites 2 Falling tree 3 Good article! 4 Static friction analogy 5 Biased examples 6 Incorrect

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)

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)

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.