Talk:Slippery slope

That bit about the static force is wrong. The mu is higher, but usually there's no friction force on a static object.

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] 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

How so? Consider the application in parenting, where one can successfully argue that giving in to a tantrum precipitates more tantrums. This slippery slope argument is provably true, as we use the same conditioning to acheieve the positive result of using "please" and "thank you" at all times, and no-one argues that the technique in this usage is generally unsuccessful. Particular cases may vary, but I don't see how blanket statements about the fallaciousness of this argument are provable. Lord Dust 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

more precisely , it's hard to stop or reverse the slide; you go faster and faster down the slope and because it's slippery the brakes work poorly. A major reason the argument is used is to warn people that it seems easy enough to stop or reverse at the beginning, but that soon becomes harder and harder, therefore so not stary. RJensen Rjensen 05:40, 13 November 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)

Every single example in WP could be drawn from the right wing and it still wouldn't be POV, because they are just that, examples; the article isn't about the examples or about political philosophies. And the preponderance of examples of slippery slope arguments by right wingers or libertarians may simply reflect a real world tendency of those folks to use such arguments. NPOV is not at all the same thing as "balance" -- "balance" is a thoroughly bogus concept employed to hide or distort statistical differences; it's just a slightly more sophisticated form of the tu quoque fallacy. -- 71.102.160.109 21:22, 13 June 2007 (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.

This "gas can" example is not at all an example of a slippery slope. It's a glaring example of the basic problem here -- "editors" have trouble remembering that they aren't authorities and their reasoning is unreliable. Unfortunately, these talk pages are full of this sort of reasoning, which is utterly inappropriate to WP. The role of the editors is to build articles from sources, not from their own minds. -- 71.102.160.109 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Other examples of the need to be specific

Public drunkenness is considered unacceptable not because of particular qualities of drunks such as their smell or poor etiquette, but because of the indirect implications. Drunks are far more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior and can be a danger to transportation even when not driving. This is a correct example of a slipperly slope where the behavior of being drunk in public has a stigma because of where it is known to lead. Drunks cause scuffles and collisions at verifiably elevated rates.

Another example is gun safety. There are a number of basic rules for handling and operating guns which when followed greatly reduce the chance of accidental death. Not following any one of these rules even for a short period of gun handling or operation can result in an accident. Modern firearms are relatively safe and the vast majority of gun owners do not inflict any unintended injuries. Gun safety rules represent a slipperly slope not because an accident becomes likely without them, but because the probability of having an accident is elevated without them and the consequences of an accident are considered unacceptable.

Even though speeding directly causes increased fuel consumption, that is an economic factor mostly in the hands of drivers. The primary reason for speed limits is safety. Skilled drivers know that very high speeds can be safe even with ordinary vehicles on ordinary roads, but increased speed reduces available time for reacting and increases damage done in collisions. Speed laws are held in place by the slipperly slope.

The logic of the slippery slope is correct where risks are well known and understood and incorrect in the absence of strongly established causality. -- M0llusk 11:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussions of undersirable causal consequences are not slippery slope arguments. Slippery slope arguments, as the name implies, hold that there is an inherent tendency to move from one state to a more extreme form of that state -- for instance, gun control leading to gun bans, or legalization of public drunkenness leading to legalization of public sexual intercourse. None of your examples are examples of slippery slopes. Slippery slope arguments are almost always fallacious, because such inherent tendencies do not, generally, exist. -- 71.102.160.109 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrible Article

In the spirit of compromising and not knowing the meaning of "logical fallacy" and its use and context, this article is misleading and not actually clear. Debateint is confused with history and hindsight. If one has never actually debated or studied Logic, you will not understand why it is a logical fallacy.Gary Joseph 05:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it a fallacy, or is it valid? Under the definition of "valid" it says (and I agree) "In logic, the form of an argument is valid precisely if it cannot lead from true premises to a false conclusion. An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true. For example: "All A are B; some A are C; therefore some B are C" is a valid form." So either the slippery slope argument is valid xor its fallicious... somebody is trying to have their cake and eat it two, but doesn't realize the dilemma. ~~

Uh, no, that's a false dichotomy. There's no such thing as "the slippery slope argument" -- slippery slope is a class of arguments, some of which may be fallacious and some of which may not be (although examples of the latter are few and far between). Also, logical validity is not the proper criterion to judge most arguments; for instance, almost no scientific argument is logically valid, because empirical inferences don't necessarily follow from supporting evidence, as David Hume pointed out long ago. -- 71.102.160.109 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Curiousity - what is the opposite to "slippery slope" - same idea but in a positive direction. " A solid plan","sure path", etc - this can be valid or false also I suspect - 159.105.80.141 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The opposite of a slippery slope argument is a slippery slope argument. The logic of the argument doesn't determine what direction is "positive" -- that's a subjective judgment. For instance, the argument that gun controls will lead to gun bans would be seen by some as leading in a positive direction. Same for legalization of drugs, gay sex legitimizing polygamy and beastiality, etc. -- 71.102.160.109 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Slippery Slope Arguments in Layman's Terms

I think that the discussion page has clarified a few important things, such as: an argument not necessarily being a fallacy, and secondly that it is not a paradox. However for the purposes of those new to Philosopy, could the main article not include a simpler example such as:

"I do not want to let my daughter out with her friends because her grades will suffer."

If P then Q
If Q then R
If R then S
If S then... X
Q
___________
Therefore X

(If P is let my daughter out, and Q is she will get drunk, and R is end up getting double penny off boys from the school on special measures., and S is end up with a baby., and X is 'her grades will suffer'. Here the utterer is presuming that Q will unquestionably lead to X, which is fallacious. For those who are still befuddled: It is not correct to presume that the daughter's grades will suffer based upon a hypothetical series of events that are dependent upon the previous one having occured.