My favorite argument against the slippery slope fallacy was made by John Oliver. He was doing a piece on gun control and said “If someone asks,‘If we start banning assault rifles then where do we stop?’ the answer is : ‘somewhere.’”
The thing is, if history has always shown that B follows A, then C, then D… then it’s not so much a fallacy as a reasonable prediction based upon past history. Does that mean it will, necessarily, 100% always follow? No, of course not. But these are not formal debates, and as long as it is clear it is a prediction based upon historical precedents, it isnt a fallacy at all.
So then “it” is not the slippery slope.
The slippery slope is explicitly a fallacy. If we have reasons for supposing A leads to B, that’s not the slippery slope.
It is a debate fallacy, aka a informal fallacy.
It is perfectly Ok to use it here, for example.
You will points if you use it in your High School debate club.
No, an informal fallacy is still a rational error; not merely an illegal “sweep the leg” move.
You are free to use it anywhere there’s free speech, it’s just fallacious.
No, in fact it isnt. It is just something that loses you points in a debate.
Formal fallacies are a failure of logic.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ivytech-engl112/chapter/formal-and-informal-fallacies/
*Formal Fallacies
Most formal fallacies are errors of logic: the conclusion doesn’t really “follow from” (is not supported by) the premises. Either the premises are untrue or the argument is invalid.
Informal Fallacies
Informal fallacies take many forms and are widespread in everyday discourse. Very often they involve bringing irrelevant information into an argument or they are based on assumptions that, when examined, prove to be incorrect. Formal fallacies are created when the relationship between premises and conclusion does not hold up or when premises are unsound; informal fallacies are more dependent on misuse of language and of evidence.
It is easy to find fairly well-accepted lists of informal fallacies, but that does not mean that it is always easy to spot them. Some moves are always fallacious; others may be allowable given the context.
No, this is incorrect. You’ll notice your own cite mentions nothing about debate scoring, but does mention the reasoning errors inherent to informal fallacies.
Fallacies of all types are errors in reasoning. Indeed, fallacious reasoning.
The difference between a formal and informal fallacy is that the former is flawed because it did not follow rules of deductive reasoning correctly, and the latter is flawed because of the content of the argument; it inferred something that is not actually implied.
The idea that the definition is about debate scoring is laughable. Good luck finding it defined that way anywhere.
That isn’t a logical/formal fallacy, though. That’s just wrong. A logical or argumentative fallacy is when the very nature of my argument is itself flawed. You’re describing a case where there isn’t a fallacy, it’s just that the facts are wrong - formal vs. informal, as noted above.
My favorite example of an informal argumentative fallacy was a few years ago when Conrad Black, a Canadian conservative, made the extremely weird argument - I don’t remember why this even came up - that the US Navy should name the lead ship in its new fleet of aircraft carriers after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Black’s logic was actually quite sound:
-
The general naming convention for American supercarriers had become to name them after great Americans.
-
The greatest American who ever lived who had not yet had his name used for an aircraft carrier was, in Black’s opinion, Dr. King.
-
Ergo, name an aircraft carrier after him. (The one he wanted named after King was the ship now called USS Gerald Ford, and in fairness, gotta admit, King is a more towering figure.)
I mean, you cannot argue that doesn’t follow. The problem is the stuff Black didn’t mention - King WAS A PACIFIST. He would not have wanted a nuclear-weapon-armed warship named after him. What a stupid idea. No formal fallacies, though!
Yes, but if we ban slippery slope arguments, where will it end?
In silence. Blessed silence.
This was my understanding:
A logical argument is one structure so that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST, without exception, also be true. A formal logical fallacy really means just that; the argument is structured in a way that is not logical, in that although the premises are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
Where I think people get confused is that it does not mean that the conclusion is definitively false, just that the proponent has not supported the conclusion by the argument. People also forget the “if true” part to logical arguments. The argument:
All mammals have four legs
Humans are mammals
Therefore, humans have four legs
is a completely logical argument. It is just that the first premise is not true.
The slippery slope fallacy is informal so it cannot be diagrammed so easily, but it simply means that the conclusion does not necessarily follow. It doesn’t mean that the slippery slope won’t happen, it is just that without more, it isn’t proven. And for almost all of the debates we have in society or on this board, there is no end result of a logical argument, there is just left a competing value judgment, first because the facts/premises are in dispute, and the value of the proposition is also debated. (e.g. how valuable is owning an assault weapon or being able to have a legal abortion?)
But informal fallacies are valuable tools of rhetoric and throwing out the OMG IT IS THE SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY at the outset is unwarranted and causes a side debate about logical fallacies. To take an example in this thread, if I say “If you smoke marijuana, in ten years you will be smoking crack cocaine” it is a fallacy; I have not supported that argument in any way. Again, it doesn’t mean it is false, I just have to flesh that out more.
I don’t think that is a slippery slope as much as it is an unproven assertion. A person is saying that if you make public colleges free, these certain bad direct results will happen.
A slippery slope would be more like, “If you made public colleges free, the next thing you know they will make grad schools free, then swimming pools free, and houses free and the government will control everything in our lives and we will be living in a Castro-like despotism” And for argument purposes, maybe we will live in a despotism ten years from now if we make public college free. But the person stating that has in no way shown that those next steps will be taken. There is no reason why public colleges can’t be made free and then nothing else made free.