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.
Then you're using the word "fallacy" in a different way than normal humans use it. That might be a more correct way of using it, I don't know, but just be aware that people will take it differently than you mean it. Calling something a fallacy sounds like you're saying that it's incorrect and should be completely discounted.
I don't think anybody believes that their "slippery slope" argument is conclusive proof, we all know it's just one consideration in the debate.
Alex
On 11/11/03 5:13 PM, "Alex Rosen" arosen@novell.com wrote:
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.
Then you're using the word "fallacy" in a different way than normal humans use it.
So now I'm not normal? Thanks. What is the "normal" definition of fallacy?
That might be a more correct way of using it, I don't know, but just be aware that people will take it differently than you mean it. Calling something a fallacy sounds like you're saying that it's incorrect and should be completely discounted.
It *is* incorrect and it should be avoided whenever possible. Some fallacies are correctable or at least improvable; others are not.
I don't think anybody believes that their "slippery slope" argument is conclusive proof, we all know it's just one consideration in the debate.
I don't presume to know what everyone else is thinking. Since all we have to communicate with is our words, it behooves us to be rigorous in our language.
Again, a slippery slope argument and an inductive argument are not equivalent. There's a reason the words are different.
The Cunctator wrote:
Again, a slippery slope argument and an inductive argument are not equivalent. There's a reason the words are different.
A quick scan of recent media seems to argue differently: there are numerous uses of the term "slippery slope" by politicians arguing against the Patriot Act, for example, who argue that it makes it easier for future government power grabs. This is, by your terminology, an inductive argument, but widely referred to as a "slippery slope" argument by those actually making the argument. A typical phrase is "this starts us on a slippery slope towards...". Opponents of the recent partial-birth abortion ban act have made similar arguments, that this is the first step towards further restrictions on abortion.
For a rigorous treatment of the legitimate use of slippery slope arguments in their numerous forms, see "The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope", a forthcoming book by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, available online in draft form: http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slippery.htm
-Mark
On 11/11/03 5:59 PM, "Delirium" delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Again, a slippery slope argument and an inductive argument are not equivalent. There's a reason the words are different.
A quick scan of recent media seems to argue differently: there are numerous uses of the term "slippery slope" by politicians arguing against the Patriot Act, for example, who argue that it makes it easier for future government power grabs. This is, by your terminology, an inductive argument, but widely referred to as a "slippery slope" argument by those actually making the argument. A typical phrase is "this starts us on a slippery slope towards...". Opponents of the recent partial-birth abortion ban act have made similar arguments, that this is the first step towards further restrictions on abortion.
Moving past semantics, the important thing here is that proponents of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act have explicitly expressed their desire to ban all abortion.
Similarly, the Bush administration has proposed legislation extending the Patriot Act.
It is one thing to argue "x is the vanguard of sweeping change" when the proponents of x also are proposing sweeping change. It is another thing when the proponents of x do not propose such sweeping change.
Not that I'm saying x is never the vanguard of such changes. I'm as suspicious of creature feep and slippery slopes as anyone except, perhaps, hard-core moral conservatives.
For a rigorous treatment of the legitimate use of slippery slope arguments in their numerous forms, see "The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope", a forthcoming book by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, available online in draft form: http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slippery.htm
This is a valuable resource for understanding how to usefully analyze slippery-slope arguments by exploring the mechanisms by which A is connected to B.
e.g.
This: "gun registration will lead to gun confiscation" is a fallacious slippery-slope argument, and not terribly constructive.
But it *is* constructive to say:
"Gun registration may lead to gun confiscation through the following mechanisms:
* Registration may change people¹s attitudes about the propriety of confiscation, by making them view gun possession not as a right but as a privilege that the government grants and therefore may deny.
* Registration may be seen as a small enough change that people will reasonably ignore it (³I¹m too busy to worry about little things like this²), but when aggregated with a sequence of other small changes, registration can ultimately lead to confiscation, or something close to it.
* The enactment of registration requirements can create political momentum in favor of gun control supporters, thus making it easier for them to persuade legislators to enact confiscation.
* Non-gun-owners are more likely than gun owners to support confiscation. If registration is onerous enough, over time it may discourage some people from buying guns, thus diminish the fraction of the public that owns guns, diminish the political power of the gun-owner voting bloc, and increase the likelihood that confiscation will be politically feasible.
* Registration may lower the cost of confiscationsince the government would know which people¹s houses to search if the residents don¹t turn in their guns voluntarilyand thus make confiscation more appealing.
* Registration may trigger the operation of other legal rules that make confiscation easier and thus more cost-effective: When guns aren¹t registered, confiscation would be largely unenforceable, since house-to-house searches to find guns would violate the Fourth Amendment; but if guns are registered some years before confiscation is enacted, the registration database might provide probable cause to search the houses of all registered gun owners."
Of course, some of those arguments are weaker than others, but it's a *lot* better than simply saying "gun registration will lead to gun confiscation".