# 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:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**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 28, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/41 "2016-01-28T15:31:01Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 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). IMO there’s less to this distinction than meets the eye. Because the studies don’t demonstrate anything about Germany taking the Sudetenland specifically. They just demonstrate that there’s some sort of process that could be in effect. Anyone who disputed this could easily come up with any number of reasons why that effect wouldn’t happen in this case. So what you’re left with is still a subjective judgement. Conversely, if you don’t mention any studies, it’s not like it takes a rocket scientist or someone familiar with learned studies to figure out that someone who gets his way once might be emboldened to try the same approach again. Anyone who has been exposed to real life in any meaningful form has seen this happen. Everyone knows the phenomenon, and the only question is whether it will come into play in this particular instance (based on a whole lot of other factors). So even the guy who doesn’t bother specifying the basis for the slippery slope is adding something to the consideration of the issue, by raising an aspect that people are familiar with and can judge on their own but might not have considered had he not raised it. That said, I’ll grant that a guy who can produce studies is adding something over a guy who doesn’t bother. But it’s not like the studies are transforming it from a “fallacy” to a non-fallacy. I suppose if the slippery slope was so far-fetched that no one could figure out on their own how going from Point A to Point B might inevitably lead to Point C, then you would be correct. But this is rarely if ever the case. ---
**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, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/42 "2016-01-28T15:53:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > IMO there’s less to this distinction than meets the eye. > > Because the studies don’t demonstrate anything about Germany taking the Sudetenland specifically. They just demonstrate that there’s some sort of process that could be in effect. Anyone who disputed this could easily come up with any number of reasons why that effect wouldn’t happen in this case. So what you’re left with is still a subjective judgement. Of course the proposition is disputable. The point is that _a proposition has been advanced to dispute_. That’s the difference between a reasoned argument and a mere assertion. > [@](#): > > Conversely, if you don’t mention any studies, it’s not like it takes a rocket scientist or someone familiar with learned studies to figure out that someone who gets his way once might be emboldened to try the same approach again. Anyone who has been exposed to real life in any meaningful form has seen this happen. Everyone knows the phenomenon, and the only question is whether it will come into play in this particular instance (based on a whole lot of other factors). So even the guy who doesn’t bother specifying the basis for the slippery slope is adding something to the consideration of the issue, by raising an aspect that people are familiar with and can judge on their own but might not have considered had he not raised it. > > That said, I’ll grant that a guy who can produce studies is adding something over a guy who doesn’t bother. But it’s not like the studies are transforming it from a “fallacy” to a non-fallacy. > > I suppose if the slippery slope was so far-fetched that no one could figure out on their own how going from Point A to Point B might inevitably lead to Point C, then you would be correct. But this is rarely if ever the case. Sure the pointing out of the informal fallacy adds something. It adds the distinction between someone advancing a reasoned argument, and someone who is not. Either person may be right or wrong, of course. But knowing this difference is important, and the understanding of informal fallacies is helpful: it leads to the creation of better, more well thought out arguments, which is good. ---
**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 28, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/43 "2016-01-28T16:03:11Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Of course the proposition is disputable. The point is that _a proposition has been advanced to dispute_. > > That’s the difference between a reasoned argument and a mere assertion. I disagree. It’s just the difference between a more detailed argument and a less detailed one (or an argument where parts of the argument are implicit and expected to be self-understood). There’s not any fundamental difference - they are just different points on the same scale. As a lot of little kids have figured out, you can keep asking “why?” forever. Whether they’re meaningful questions or not depends on specifics in a given case. > [@](#): > > Sure the pointing out of the informal fallacy adds something. It adds the distinction between someone advancing a reasoned argument, and someone who is not. I’m not sure what this is in response to. We’ve not been discussing whether “pointing out of the informal fallacy” adds anything or not. (FWIW, if it’s correct that it’s a fallacy then pointing that out would add something; otherwise not. But this seems trivially obvious.) > [@](#): > > Either person may be right or wrong, of course. But knowing this difference is important, and the understanding of informal fallacies is helpful: it leads to the creation of better, more well thought out arguments, which is good. Same here. If something is legitimately a fallacy, then pointing out why it’s a fallacy is worthwhile. If something is not logically a fallacy, then attaching the “fallacy” label to it (whether based on flawed reasoning, or on a superficial resemblance to other flawed arguments) detracts from the argument, and is a shorthand way of dismissing something that the arguer has failed to dispute on rational grounds. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/44 "2016-01-28T16:20:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I disagree. It’s just the difference between a more detailed argument and a less detailed one (or an argument where parts of the argument are implicit and expected to be self-understood). There’s not any fundamental difference - they are just different points on the same scale. > > As a lot of little kids have figured out, you can keep asking “why?” forever. Whether they’re meaningful questions or not depends on specifics in a given case. > > I’m not sure what this is in response to. We’ve not been discussing whether “pointing out of the informal fallacy” adds anything or not. (FWIW, if it’s correct that it’s a fallacy then pointing that out would add something; otherwise not. But this seems trivially obvious.) > > Same here. If something is legitimately a fallacy, then pointing out why it’s a fallacy is worthwhile. If something is not logically a fallacy, then attaching the “fallacy” label to it (whether based on flawed reasoning, or on a superficial resemblance to other flawed arguments) detracts from the argument, and is a shorthand way of dismissing something that the arguer has failed to dispute on rational grounds. Seems like you have been arguing that pointing out this particular informal fallacy is pointless (or, alternatively, that it isn’t really an informal fallacy - amounts once again to the same thing). I’m arguing that pointing it out has value (or, alternatively, that it is in fact an informal fallacy - you can take your pick). You claim that pointing it out as a fallacy, when it is not, is itself a sort of fallacy - a kind of ad hom for arguments. I’m pointing out exactly _why_ its use makes perfect sense: it indicates a lack of any reason provided in the argument for the inevitability of the “slope”. But you don’t have to take my word on it. Here’s someone else’s definition: > [@](#): > > The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form: > > 1.Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). > 2.Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. > > This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html) This appears perfectly reasonable to me (given it’s what I’ve been saying all along) and I’m not seeing why it isn’t. ---
**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 28, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/45 "2016-01-28T17:56:44Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Seems like you have been arguing that pointing out this particular informal fallacy is pointless (or, alternatively, that it isn’t really an informal fallacy - amounts once again to the same thing). > > I’m arguing that pointing it out has value (or, alternatively, that it is in fact an informal fallacy - you can take your pick). > > You claim that pointing it out as a fallacy, when it is not, is itself a sort of fallacy - a kind of ad hom for arguments. I’m saying two things: [ol] [li]that, as with any other type of argument, individual instances of the slippery slope argument may be fallacious or not, depending on the details of the specific argument, and therefore[/li][li]purporting to rebut an argument simply by calling it a “slippery slope fallacy” without making the case as to why it doesn’t hold in a particular case is itself fallacious.[/li][/ol] > [@](#): > > But you don’t have to take my word on it. Here’s someone else’s definition: I have a feeling that trying to prove something because some other guy said so is itself considered to be some sort of fallacy. 🙂 I’ve noted earlier that “_if the slippery slope was so far-fetched that no one could figure out on their own how going from Point A to Point B might inevitably lead to Point C, then you would be correct_”, and it’s possible that the nizkor people are talking about such a case. But if not, then I disagree with them too. ---
**Author:** ![Subterraneanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Subterraneanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterraneanus)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/46 "2016-01-29T00:15:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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. No, because it’s not a formal fallacy, since the error concerns how to characterize the _world_, not a violation of the conditions for validity in a logical system. Furthermore, it’s an _inductive_ fallacy—not a deductive fallacy—so validity, invalidity, and soundness do not apply. The issue concerns the _strength/weakness_ and _cogency_ of the argument. More specifically, it’s a fallacy of _weak induction_: even if we assume the premises to be true, they are not strong enough to make the conclusion _probable_ (as opposed to _necessary_, which is the case with deductively valid arguments). ---
**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 29, 2016, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324/47 "2016-01-29T14:38:51Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 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. It’s just a particular way of making an illogical argument. The slippery slope fallacy tries to connect two things that are far apart, but not logically connected, by taking small steps that sound more reasonable, but are also not logical. It’s just another variation on the basic fallacy, yes, but it’s important to recognize the different fallacious forms. Yes, I just used the word “fallacious,” and it felt good. This one is particularly important to understand because as noted, it’s not always fallacious. I just used that word AGAIN. It can be a legitimate argument if the baby steps are all legitimate too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-slippery-slope-fallacy-really-a-fallacy/744324.md?page=2)