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.
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.
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.
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:
[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]
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.
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).
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.
