On 11/11/03 4:35 PM, "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
For one, slippery slope arguments are fallacies too.
Not always. Some people might convincingly argue, for example, that setting a precedent of banning people for a particular infraction may make it easier and easier to ban them for other infractions. I think that's a legitimate concern.
That's an inductive argument, not a slippery slope argument.
All inductive arguments are fallacies, in the rigorous sense. Only deductive arguments are rigorously valid.
Although they are fallacies, that does not mean that inductive arguments should be ignored. They simply need to be recognized as such--that there is necessarily an element of uncertainty about the conclusion.