# Is the Slippery Slope "fallacy" really a fallacy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 27, 2016, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324 "2016-01-27T00:45:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/21 "2016-01-27T16:39:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t see anyone in this thread making a case that the Slippery Slope argument is a fallacy. A lot of people have suggested reasons that it could certainly be wrong in a given instance, which is certainly true, but so could any other form of argument. > > The relevance is that if someone makes a slippery slope argument, you can’t just wave it away by saying “that’s a slippery slope fallacy” (as is commonly done) but have to demonstrate why in this case the slippery slope argument fails. > > I don’t understand this argument. What difference does it make what the mechanism is? > > Suppose we’re currently at Point A, and there’s a fight over whether to change to Point B. Supporters of Point A are arguing that while the change to Point B itself is OK (or not terrible, anyway), but it will inevitably lead to Point C, and Point C is far worse than Point A. What difference does it make whether the slide to Point C is due to a nefarious scheme by Point B supporters, or due to some other dynamic? The equation is the same: Point A is better than Point C, so we should not switch to Point B because this will inevitably lead to Point C. It is indeed a fallacy, when it is used in place of argument to justify it. The “fallacy” part arises because it elides the necessity for making argument to justify the assumptions used for the “slope” A to B to C (etc.). The longer the “slope” asserted without justification, the more fallacious it is. The weak point is the “inevitability” of the slide: arguing that the change from point A to point B is bad, because it will lead to point C, is a “fallacy” where no actual convincing evidence is presented that moving from point A to B will, in fact, “inevitably” lead to C. Calling it out as a fallacy is indistinguishable from saying “present convincing evidence that A to B will, in fact, inevitably lead to C”. Supporting it as not a fallacy is indistinguishable from providing that evidence. In short, given that the burden is always on the person making an assertion to prove it, there is nothing wrong with calling out a slippery slope fallacy: it is the same as saying your argument does not have the evidence you need to prove your point. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/22 "2016-01-27T16:44:15Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > But if we admit the slippery slope fallacy is true then we’ll have to admit all logical fallacies are true, debate will break down, we launch the nukes, and civilization collapses. I don’t want to hunt mutant squirrels. That’s OK, they want to hunt you! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/23 "2016-01-27T16:48:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > It is indeed a fallacy, when it is used in place of argument to justify it. > > The “fallacy” part arises because it elides the necessity for making argument to justify the assumptions used for the “slope” A to B to C (etc.). The longer the “slope” asserted without justification, the more fallacious it is. > > The weak point is the “inevitability” of the slide: arguing that the change from point A to point B is bad, because it will lead to point C, is a “fallacy” where no actual convincing evidence is presented that moving from point A to B will, in fact, “inevitably” lead to C. > > Calling it out as a fallacy is indistinguishable from saying “present convincing evidence that A to B will, in fact, inevitably lead to C”. Supporting it as not a fallacy is indistinguishable from providing that evidence. > > In short, given that the burden is always on the person making an assertion to prove it, there is nothing wrong with calling out a slippery slope fallacy: it is the same as saying your argument does not have the evidence you need to prove your point. I don’t see why this too doesn’t apply to any other form of argument. But beyond that, ISTM that the Slippery Slope argument is generally used as a rationale rather than an attempt to prove things. Meaning “_we have to oppose any attempt to back off Position A, because if we retreat to Position B we’ll inevitably end up at Position C_”. In this context there is no such thing as the “burden of proof”. To take the example in the OP, suppose someone couldn’t prove that letting Hitler annex the Sudetenland would likely lead to a wide-scale invasion of Europe, but couldn’t provide evidence that this would happen - it was just an assessment. Are you saying that this could not be used as a rationale to take a firm stand on the annexation? Or perhaps you have some example of the Slippery Slope being used a proof of something? ---
**Author:** ![Subterraneanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Subterraneanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterraneanus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/24 "2016-01-27T16:51:15Z")
Of course it’s a fallacy—an informal fallacy. The fallacy consists in assuming some item A is logically indistinguishable from some other item Z—such that if A then Z—when they are not logically indistinguishable. It’s an _informal_ fallacy because it is not a fallacy of form (a violation of the conditions for validity) but a mistake about the _extralogical_ relationship between A and Z (i.e., a mistake about how to characterize the _world_, not logical form). ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/25 "2016-01-27T17:09:36Z")
If the slippery slope is delcared to be a fallacy, next thing you know, everything will be a fallacy! ---
**Author:** ![Subterraneanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Subterraneanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterraneanus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/26 "2016-01-27T17:13:41Z")
“Slippery slope fallacy” simply refers to cases in which the alleged relationship between A and Z is not established, because one is simply incorrect about something in the world. If one is correct, then there is no fallacy. It does not say that every chain of conditional statements is fallacious. That would be silly. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/27 "2016-01-27T18:09:19Z")
> [@Subterraneanus](#): > > “Slippery slope fallacy” simply refers to cases in which the alleged relationship between A and Z is not established, because one is simply incorrect about something in the world. If one is correct, then there is no fallacy. It does not say that every chain of conditional statements is fallacious. That would be silly. So in sum, it’s no different than any other type of argument which could be valid or invalid in a given instance but which doesn’t get “fallacy” attached to it. ISTM that the term “slippery slope fallacy” is frequently used to give additional cache to an argument that ultimately boils down to a subjective disagreement. “That’s a _Slippery Slope Fallacy_” sounds a lot better than “I disagree with that assessment”, even if the first ultimately boils down to nothing more than the second. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/28 "2016-01-27T19:00:17Z")
It’s an Informal Fallacy, which means generally the only reason for not using it is in a High School debate. Like many Informal Fallacies, it’s not a Logical fallacy at all. They just call it that. Of course, if the "slope’ is outrageous then everyone will understand a comment like “That’s some far our slipper slope there”, but it does not invalidate the argument. > **[List of fallacies | Informal fallacies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies)** > > Informal fallacies – arguments that are logically unsound for lack of well-grounded premises. > 1.Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that a compromise between two positions is always correct. | > 2.Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy, decision-point fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise. | > 3.Correlative-based falla... ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/29 "2016-01-27T19:01:47Z")
As with practically anything else having to do with actual or so-called logical/rhetorical fallacies, RationalWiki (which specializes in this sort of thing) has [a page](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) covering almost every conceivable aspect of the topic, including: > [@](#): > > **Countering the slippery slope argument** > > Frequently, the slippery slope has no evidence presented for why one would actually go down the slope, even if it is hypothetically possible. Pointing this out is sufficient to logically counter the argument. However, slippery slope arguments that involve no evidence can usually also slip the other way: if it is argued that gay marriage will lead to man-on dog sex, one could just as well argue that restricting gay marriage will lead to banning marriage altogether. If evidence _is_ presented for why the slip could occur, the argument may be valid, in which case countering it requires refuting the evidence. [Funny they should have chosen that particular example . . .](http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/01/25/3742492/tennessee-marriage-lawsuit/) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/30 "2016-01-27T19:35:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t see why this too doesn’t apply to any other form of argument. Yes, any form of argument that relies on assertion rather than evidence is subject to attack. Your problem with this is … ? > [@](#): > > But beyond that, ISTM that the Slippery Slope argument is generally used as a rationale rather than an attempt to prove things. Meaning “_we have to oppose any attempt to back off Position A, because if we retreat to Position B we’ll inevitably end up at Position C_”. In this context there is no such thing as the “burden of proof”. > > To take the example in the OP, suppose someone couldn’t prove that letting Hitler annex the Sudetenland would likely lead to a wide-scale invasion of Europe, but couldn’t provide evidence that this would happen - it was just an assessment. Are you saying that this could not be used as a rationale to take a firm stand on the annexation? > > Or perhaps you have some example of the Slippery Slope being used a proof of something? What you appear to be saying is that there is nothing wrong with making assertions. There isn’t, but assertions don’t usually win arguments: evidence and reason based on evidence does. Some things become obvious in hindsight. That doesn’t mean that arguments as to why such and such was “inevitable” aren’t bad arguments: the fact that something actually happened does not make its happening “inevitable”. It is amusing in the extreme that, in attempting to counter the validity of the slippery slope informal fallacy, you rely heavily on yet another informal fallacy: > **[Hindsight bias](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias)** > > Hindsight bias is the effect whereby people think that past events were predictable, or at least more predictable than they actually were. This is because after an event, the probability of it happening is, naturally, 100%. The bias arises because... > [@](#): > > Hindsight bias is the effect whereby people think that past events were predictable, or at least more predictable than they actually were. This is because after an event, the probability of it happening is, naturally, 100%. The bias arises because people ignore the things that didn’t happen or the things that didn’t cause the event - known as the “availability heuristic”. This allows people to point to specific causes of an event (such as a catastrophe) and ask, “Why wasn’t something done about it?” Now, there were plenty of perfectly good arguments as to why Hitler had to be stopped (like “despite what the bastard says, if you actually read his nasty book, you will see that annexing the Sudetenland will never satisfy him”). However, like that one, they rely on evidence. Simply asserting that his rampage was inevitable, without evidence, is just so much hot air. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/31 "2016-01-27T19:46:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > What you appear to be saying is that there is nothing wrong with making assertions. There isn’t, but assertions don’t usually win arguments: evidence and reason based on evidence does. No, what I was saying is that Slippery Slope arguments are generally not offered in an attempt to “win arguments”. Rather, as a rationale for a course of action. Therefore, the fact that such assertions don’t usually “win arguments” is not relevant. The point of the argument is just to offer a rationale for supporting or opposing a course of action. The listener may or may not agree with that rationale, but pointing to its existance adds something to the contemplation of the issue. > [@](#): > > Some things become obvious in hindsight. That doesn’t mean that arguments as to why such and such was “inevitable” aren’t bad arguments: the fact that something actually happened does not make its happening “inevitable”. > > It is amusing in the extreme that, in attempting to counter the validity of the slippery slope informal fallacy, you rely heavily on yet another informal fallacy: > > [Hindsight bias - RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias) > > Now, there were plenty of perfectly good arguments as to why Hitler had to be stopped (like “despite what the bastard says, if you actually read his nasty book, you will see that annexing the Sudetenland will never satisfy him”). However, like that one, they rely on evidence. Simply asserting that his rampage was inevitable, without evidence, is just so much hot air. See above. I didn’t offer the Hitler analogy as an example of a valid slippery slope argument (which would rely on it having been correct), but rather as an example of a typical form of the argument. Which is, again, as a rationale for a course of action, rather than an attempt to prove anything or win an argument. Meaning, a guy in the 30s making that argument was not trying to prove that Hitler needs to be stopped. He was offering a reason that Hitler needs to be stopped. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/32 "2016-01-27T19:55:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No, what I was saying is that Slippery Slope arguments are generally not offered in an attempt to “win arguments”. Rather, as a rationale for a course of action. > > Therefore, the fact that such assertions don’t usually “win arguments” is not relevant. The point of the argument is just to offer a rationale for supporting or opposing a course of action. The listener may or may not agree with that rationale, but pointing to its existance adds something to the contemplation of the issue. > See above. > > I didn’t offer the Hitler analogy as an example of a valid slippery slope argument (which would rely on it having been correct), but rather as an example of a typical form of the argument. Which is, again, as a rationale for a course of action, rather than an attempt to prove anything or win an argument. > > Meaning, a guy in the 30s making that argument was not trying to prove that Hitler needs to be stopped. He was offering a reason that Hitler needs to be stopped. Seems to me a distinction without a difference. A “rationale for a course of action” = “an attempt to convince others” = “an argument”. Your “rationale for a course of action” isn’t convincing to others who are thoughtful unless it is backed by “facts” and “reasoned argument”. Unless what you are really saying is that it is a good rhetorical technique to use to convince others to a course of action who are not reasoned and thoughtful - that is, an informal fallacy. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/33 "2016-01-27T20:02:27Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Seems to me a distinction without a difference. A “rationale for a course of action” = “an attempt to convince others” = “an argument”. > > Your “rationale for a course of action” isn’t convincing to others who are thoughtful unless it is backed by “facts” and “reasoned argument”. > > Unless what you are really saying is that it is a good rhetorical technique to use to convince others to a course of action who are not reasoned and thoughtful - that is, an informal fallacy. 😃 That’s not so. Some things just boil down to subjective judgement. Another person’s subjective judgement might be the same as yours. Or not. If you’re a guy in the 30s discussing the plusses and minuses of taking a firm stand on the Sudetenland, it would be a mistake to just completely leave out the possibility that this will lead to a slippery slope just because you can’t prove it. It’s a big part of the issue. Perhaps the other guy, when you raise this issue, will agree with you and think that tilts the scales in favor of intervening. Perhaps he won’t. But either way, it’s properly a part of the discussion, regardless of whether you can use it to “win the argument” or prove that you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/34 "2016-01-27T20:08:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s not so. Some things just boil down to subjective judgement. Another person’s subjective judgement might be the same as yours. Or not. > > If you’re a guy in the 30s discussing the plusses and minuses of taking a firm stand on the Sudetenland, it would be a mistake to just completely leave out the possibility that this will lead to a slippery slope just because you can’t prove it. It’s a big part of the issue. > > Perhaps the other guy, when you raise this issue, will agree with you and think that tilts the scales in favor of intervening. Perhaps he won’t. But either way, it’s properly a part of the discussion, regardless of whether you can use it to “win the argument” or prove that you’re right. I don’t get it. Whether or not to go to war with Germany (which is what this amounted to) is surely a subject on which reasoned, logical analysis ought to be valued; not something to just do because some guy thinks it’s cool. Do you take the same attitude towards modern wars? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/35 "2016-01-27T20:10:26Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t get it. Whether or not to go to war with Germany (which is what this amounted to) is surely a subject on which reasoned, logical analysis ought to be valued; not something to just do because some guy thinks it’s cool. > > Do you take the same attitude towards modern wars? “subjective judgement” is not the same thing as “thinks it’s cool”. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/36 "2016-01-27T23:29:35Z")
Back when I would read books about interpersonal psychology and influence one tactic that came up was the fact that if you got someone to agree to a minor commitment, then you could get them to agree to a more major commitment later. I don’t know if it was cognitive dissonance or what, but it came up more than once. It isn’t a real fallacy, but drawing the line between fallacy and valid is hard. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/37 "2016-01-28T06:36:33Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Back when I would read books about interpersonal psychology and influence one tactic that came up was the fact that if you got someone to agree to a minor commitment, then you could get them to agree to a more major commitment later. I don’t know if it was cognitive dissonance or what, but it came up more than once. > > It isn’t a real fallacy, but drawing the line between fallacy and valid is hard. And those who dismiss legitimate fears to give an inch take a mile types as engaging in slippery slope fallacies are probably aware of that tactic. It’s clever actually. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/38 "2016-01-28T07:12:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > First of all, let’s be perfectly clear: someone can use logically unsound arguments and still end up being correct. Let’s say I wish to argue that the Straight Dope is the best message board in the world: if I start saying that that the Dope’s nearest competitor is owned by a pedophile priest, I have argued an ad hominem. But improper argument does not necessarily mean that my proposition is wrong; it means that I’m throwing up garbage in support of my point. > > What you’re essentially arguing is that because someone was demonstrated to be correct using an illogical slippery slope argument, that the slippery slope argument tactic is not illogical because its proponents ended up being right. > > So returning to my hypothetical: I argue that the SDMB is the best based on an ad hominem. I end up being proven categorically correct that the Dope is aces, tops, the bee’s knees. Does that mean that ad hominems are sometimes proper arguments? Not YET. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/39 "2016-01-28T12:06:32Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Back when I would read books about interpersonal psychology and influence one tactic that came up was the fact that if you got someone to agree to a minor commitment, then you could get them to agree to a more major commitment later. Interesting parallel. Perhaps it’s the same part of the brain working. Just as people can fall for, or make, a slippery slope fallacy, they can tie themselves up into a slippery slope line of thought/emotion and fall for the sales pitch. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/40 "2016-01-28T14:48:59Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Back when I would read books about interpersonal psychology and influence one tactic that came up was the fact that if you got someone to agree to a minor commitment, then you could get them to agree to a more major commitment later. I don’t know if it was cognitive dissonance or what, but it came up more than once. > > It isn’t a real fallacy, but drawing the line between fallacy and valid is hard. That’s a psychological explanation for the mechanism of a particular “slippery slope”. If one gives an explanation for a slippery slope, one isn’t engaged in an informal fallacy (though of course, one could then debate the validity of that explanation, back and forth). The point about the slippery slope being an informal fallacy is that it is an “argument” that disguises the lack of explanation for exactly how one gets from A to B to [undesirable] C. It’s a sort of argument by assertion. For example: “If you agree to allowing Germany take the Sudetanland, you will inevitably agree to allowing Germany to take Poland and then Russia” - slippery slope informal fallacy: no mechanism or explanation is provided as to why this would inevitably follow aside from mere assumption and assertion. “If you agree to allowing Germany take the Sudetanland, you will inevitably agree to allowing Germany to take Poland and then Russia, because psychologically, having caved once, it will become habitual, and you will be unable to resist further demands; these studies demonstrate this effect” - no slippery slope informal fallacy; a mechanism is proposed for why A to B will lead to C (which then can be debated). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324.md?page=3)