On 11/11/03 4:35 PM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)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.