Slippery slopes are tricky.. in that real life is rarely "If A then B, If B then C etc.." it's more like.. "If A and B and C then D, and if D and E and F but not G, then quite possibly H, and.... so therefore not A" In other words "slippery slopes" as a phenomenon are real, but they're hard to predict, other than general tendencies "If you don't study on Saturdays, you'll be less likely to make good grades, and thus less likely to get into a good school, and this less likely.." etc. So rather than try to define a definitive result, analyze the specific consequences of your action.. "Will studying on Saturdays and the academic advantage outweigh the general young kid fun I could have on the weekends?" "Will legalizing marijuana lead to more relaxed attitudes about drugs in general that lead to more experimentation and overdose fatalities?" "Will legalizing gay marriage and destroying traditional gender and social norms lead to breakdowns in community cohesion and marriage rates declining?" All these questions aren't going to have a definitive yes or no, just a likelihood based off the logical and empirical evidence you can collect.
Do you think it could also be a hint of a false dilemma? Either A you study and go to top university, or B You don't and become a Janitor. You don't want to become a Janitor, so you should study. Splitting the choice into 2 options, when there are clearly middle grounds.
A slippery slope is not always a fallacy. If each link is causative of the following link and the final link is a logical outcome than you have a valid argument. For instance, if you gave information to support your transition from stop and frisk to no knock searches such as history of similar systems, then your slope would be less slippery. However, to go directly from one to the other would be a leap.
If you jump off a building you will impact the ground at high velocity. If you impact the ground at high velocity many blood carrying vessiles will rupture. If such ruptures occur your cells will be deprived of oxygen. If your cells are deprived of oxygen you will die. Its not a slipper slope to go from If you jump off a building you will die. Thats straight down actually.
One fallacy I just became aware of is if you do or say something and you’re wrong, you should never be allowed the chance to make any such mistake again. I’m not sure what the name for it is but there’s an inverse relationship where the severity of the mistake vs severity of reaction become either more or less logical depending. Like a misunderstanding that results in someone being executed being the most illogical versus a scientific experiment that kills, for example, most of the Earths population being shrugged off as an error. What’s that called?
It's so good to see logic in the comments of a RUclips video for a change. Even if some of you are wrong it's still encouraging to see that you are trying.
The statistical part of this video could have been explained better using a branched flow chart. Summarizing all the possible outcomes to 100%. None the less, good video and good explanation.
@tetrahydrocanabidol A good question! Depends on how we define probability. One standard definition is to say that the probability of the coin landing heads = the ratio of the number of times it lands heads divided by the total number of tosses, in the limit as the number of tosses increases. So over 1000 tosses, very close to 500 will land heads, and this is a way of defining what it means to say that the odds of it landing heads is 50%.
I hear this argument a lot. Kids tell me that if they don't take an AP class then they woun't get into a good college and will not "Do well" or "Be successful."
@arachnophile01 ... from "extreme" political speech. The former (permitting violent speech) can be cast as a violation of the rights of citizens (those to whom the violence is directed), but extreme political speech (arguing for the socialist cause, or the libertarian cause, or the fundamentalist cause, etc.), by itself, isn't a violation of anyone else's rights, and that ought to be protected.
Worth mentioning that the very name of this fallacy indicates something fallacious or even disingenuous about it -- the implication that once the first step A--> B is taken, the following steps are inevitable and irreversible, as if one had taken one step down a muddy bank and is sliding helplessly toward the water or a cliff edge. Great modules. I will use these with my students.
@tetrahydrocanabidol As I said below, this a good question. And if we think that determinism is true, then why wouldn't the probability of the actual outcome be equal to 1 (since it was "fated" to occur)? But the standard definitions of probability, like the limiting frequency definition I sketch below, are compatible with this possibility. The outcome of a single coin toss might be predetermined, but we can still use probabilistic concepts to describe the behavior of systems like this.
@theantisauronist It's true, this is a cardinal rule of political debate (indeed, of almost any form of political communication). I would treat this as more of a rhetorical strategy than a fallacy (avoiding an issue is a tactic, it doesn't necessarily make anyone guilty of an error in reasoning). However, if someone switches topics like this and then claims they've answered the original question, that's closer to a "red herring".
@tetrahydrocanabidol Exactly right. This is just to say that these are independent trials, the outcome of one doesn't affect the odds of the other. But "two heads in a row" is a description of a different event, it's the joint event of a coin landing heads twice: P(H and H) = P(H) x P(H) = 1/4. If you toss two coins in succession, 100 times, you'll get two heads roughly 25 times out of 100.
@arachnophile01 I certainly agree that any government censorship of political speech is undesirable. Orwell wrote movingly about the harms that can be caused by censorship and government control of media. His greatest worry was the potential assault on the very notion of objective truth itself, the notion that there could be a truth independent of the official party line. But I think we can still distinguish speech that directly incites violence -- which might be worthy of censorship - from ...
if you have as a premise a->b->c->d then you need to prove the premises a->b and b->c and c->d is untrue cause if they are then by contra positive !d -> !a (Not D implies Not A). Its not the length of the casecade you should be argumeing against its the components in the cascade you should showing are not true. This applies to single step premises such as a->b.
@arachnophile01 Well, I said "might" be worthy of censorship. Reasonable people can and do disagree on this issue. In the US the first amendment protects almost all speech, but there are exceptions, like inciting to riot, or direct threats of violence, or defamation. The laws vary across countries. Moral and political philosophers who write on this issue vary in their conclusions too. I haven't devoted enough time and thought to the issue to have a strong opinion one way or the other yet.
I, so far, identified "Slippery Slope" with a typically normative argument: from a conservative opinion "We must not allow A, else B will follow". Well-knon example in the current debate: "If gay marriage is allowed, marriage with animals and sex with children will soon be legal" Besides the mere chain of conditional claims, there is always the topos of the well-established consensus, that must not be jeopardized, else absurde szenes of chaos will invariably ensure. "We must tread on that S.S."
+neroysc When you realize that it's true more often than not, just give or take a generation indoctrinated in the new "right" system of beliefs. In twenty years it'll be legal to marry dogs.
+CsyoREN If the evidences or the continuity of premises have been proven, pragmatically or scientifically speakin. Then the claimed will then be true, which makes the conclusion to holds a certain credibility of it being the actual outcome, to the first premise that has been stated for that argument. Although the form of this format is not valid. But it's used all the time, either by educators or assumptious people that acts as a dilettante in their everyday life.
Back in the old days we didn't have all this bullshit, jargon. We called certain thoughts, "assumtions". However, slippery slopes will cause you to fall. That is just a given. So certain ways of thinking can and will eventually, allow worse things to happen. Certain logical fallacies are more modern memes that were invented to restrict freedom of speech and religion. If I can get you to believe that all your thoughts are fallacies and that only mine are what you should accept by restricting your ability to express, truth, then you are easy prey.
I only want my children flipping burgers as a franchisee owner. I started there and it is not a long term solution. Great to start off but not as a career.
It's a "strawman" fallacy. The SS fallacy uses a bad example. The assumed consequences in this example are possible. The claimed consequence is a valid indication of the direction which the actions undertaken will lead. The poster also ignores the rather obvious element of hyperbole. The video is a fallacy of equivocation.
A: rising consumption >>> B: rising CO2 emissions >>> C: global warming >>> D: people are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing
Climate Change is not a slippery slope fallacy because each one of those steps is backed up by sound reasoning and scientific data. Like the video says A -> B -> C-> D can be a valid argument form if the premises are correct.
@@tissueboxmajor4903 I didn't state that tge idea of climate change is a slippery slope (btw. this is the perfect example of the strawman fallacy). My statement was that the causal link between climate change (C) and Greta Thunberg's vision of "people are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing" (D) isn't sound as it doesn't take into account already existing innovations such as desalination plants, GMO crops, vertical farms and dams (= affordable drinking water & food and rising sea levels are not insurmantable problems).
Isn't this the thing people used back then to oppose interracial marriage? Idk, but id rather everyone have the same rights because id hate to be in the other guys shoes
Calling something a Fallacy means you are saying the argument is ILLOGICAL, not that the argument is weak. Sorry but you utterly failed to demonstrate that the logic of Slippery Slope Arguments is illogical. In fact your initial image is in support of the statement that they indeed are logical. You can make both a weak and a strong slippery slope argument, but whether the argument is good or bad has no bearing on whether or not it is a fallacy. It may be the case that there is only a 50% chance that D occurs, but the argument is that allowing A with a 50% chance of D happening if we do is not worth the risk
Actually, this is done by both sides.. I've caught myself arguing for 'no theism in science' ..... '100 years our children would be fully educated and we'd have a strong economy'..
It may be a fallacy everywhere else, but in the field of politics, it's the slippery slope _tactic._
Or are politics seen as untrustworthy because they see fallacies as tactics?
Slippery slopes are tricky.. in that real life is rarely "If A then B, If B then C etc.." it's more like.. "If A and B and C then D, and if D and E and F but not G, then quite possibly H, and.... so therefore not A" In other words "slippery slopes" as a phenomenon are real, but they're hard to predict, other than general tendencies "If you don't study on Saturdays, you'll be less likely to make good grades, and thus less likely to get into a good school, and this less likely.." etc. So rather than try to define a definitive result, analyze the specific consequences of your action.. "Will studying on Saturdays and the academic advantage outweigh the general young kid fun I could have on the weekends?" "Will legalizing marijuana lead to more relaxed attitudes about drugs in general that lead to more experimentation and overdose fatalities?" "Will legalizing gay marriage and destroying traditional gender and social norms lead to breakdowns in community cohesion and marriage rates declining?" All these questions aren't going to have a definitive yes or no, just a likelihood based off the logical and empirical evidence you can collect.
This is one of the least understood examples of a fallacy, I'd have to agree with you.
no fallacy too extreme when arguing with my mom
If a slippery slope argument is valid and logically consistent then they are called wisdom.
It's not a fallacy anymore, it's just reality
Do you think it could also be a hint of a false dilemma? Either A you study and go to top university, or B You don't and become a Janitor. You don't want to become a Janitor, so you should study.
Splitting the choice into 2 options, when there are clearly middle grounds.
A slippery slope is not always a fallacy. If each link is causative of the following link and the final link is a logical outcome than you have a valid argument. For instance, if you gave information to support your transition from stop and frisk to no knock searches such as history of similar systems, then your slope would be less slippery. However, to go directly from one to the other would be a leap.
He said that
If you jump off a building you will impact the ground at high velocity. If you impact the ground at high velocity many blood carrying vessiles will rupture. If such ruptures occur your cells will be deprived of oxygen. If your cells are deprived of oxygen you will die. Its not a slipper slope to go from If you jump off a building you will die. Thats straight down actually.
One fallacy I just became aware of is if you do or say something and you’re wrong, you should never be allowed the chance to make any such mistake again. I’m not sure what the name for it is but there’s an inverse relationship where the severity of the mistake vs severity of reaction become either more or less logical depending. Like a misunderstanding that results in someone being executed being the most illogical versus a scientific experiment that kills, for example, most of the Earths population being shrugged off as an error.
What’s that called?
It's so good to see logic in the comments of a RUclips video for a change. Even if some of you are wrong it's still encouraging to see that you are trying.
The statistical part of this video could have been explained better using a branched flow chart. Summarizing all the possible outcomes to 100%. None the less, good video and good explanation.
@tetrahydrocanabidol A good question! Depends on how we define probability. One standard definition is to say that the probability of the coin landing heads = the ratio of the number of times it lands heads divided by the total number of tosses, in the limit as the number of tosses increases. So over 1000 tosses, very close to 500 will land heads, and this is a way of defining what it means to say that the odds of it landing heads is 50%.
I hear this argument a lot. Kids tell me that if they don't take an AP class then they woun't get into a good college and will not "Do well" or "Be successful."
@arachnophile01 ... from "extreme" political speech. The former (permitting violent speech) can be cast as a violation of the rights of citizens (those to whom the violence is directed), but extreme political speech (arguing for the socialist cause, or the libertarian cause, or the fundamentalist cause, etc.), by itself, isn't a violation of anyone else's rights, and that ought to be protected.
Worth mentioning that the very name of this fallacy indicates something fallacious or even disingenuous about it -- the implication that once the first step A--> B is taken, the following steps are inevitable and irreversible, as if one had taken one step down a muddy bank and is sliding helplessly toward the water or a cliff edge.
Great modules. I will use these with my students.
Swamp of sadness? :'(
Well every American conservative "slippery slope argument" has come true so... Why is this considered a fallacy at all?
@tetrahydrocanabidol As I said below, this a good question. And if we think that determinism is true, then why wouldn't the probability of the actual outcome be equal to 1 (since it was "fated" to occur)? But the standard definitions of probability, like the limiting frequency definition I sketch below, are compatible with this possibility. The outcome of a single coin toss might be predetermined, but we can still use probabilistic concepts to describe the behavior of systems like this.
@PhilosophyFreak There are other ways of defining probability, but they're all designed to get around the objection you note here.
@theantisauronist It's true, this is a cardinal rule of political debate (indeed, of almost any form of political communication). I would treat this as more of a rhetorical strategy than a fallacy (avoiding an issue is a tactic, it doesn't necessarily make anyone guilty of an error in reasoning). However, if someone switches topics like this and then claims they've answered the original question, that's closer to a "red herring".
@tetrahydrocanabidol Exactly right. This is just to say that these are independent trials, the outcome of one doesn't affect the odds of the other. But "two heads in a row" is a description of a different event, it's the joint event of a coin landing heads twice: P(H and H) = P(H) x P(H) = 1/4. If you toss two coins in succession, 100 times, you'll get two heads roughly 25 times out of 100.
´Tipping Points´: I always wondered why that phrase bothered me.
@arachnophile01 I certainly agree that any government censorship of political speech is undesirable. Orwell wrote movingly about the harms that can be caused by censorship and government control of media. His greatest worry was the potential assault on the very notion of objective truth itself, the notion that there could be a truth independent of the official party line. But I think we can still distinguish speech that directly incites violence -- which might be worthy of censorship - from ...
if you have as a premise a->b->c->d then you need to prove the premises a->b and b->c and c->d is untrue cause if they are then by contra positive !d -> !a (Not D implies Not A). Its not the length of the casecade you should be argumeing against its the components in the cascade you should showing are not true. This applies to single step premises such as a->b.
I use to love working in fast food. I miss that career.
Very clear and well paced
Glenn Beck is the grand-master of steep, over-extended slippery slopes.
lol parents use this all the time. It just like the altercation: "Clean your room!" "Why?!" "Because I said so!" which is circular reasoning.
I don’t believe the slippery slope is a fallacy, really. Just constantly misapplied.
ALL MY ARGUMENTS HAVE BECOME VALID.
All those years...
those damn parents...
@arachnophile01 Well, I said "might" be worthy of censorship. Reasonable people can and do disagree on this issue. In the US the first amendment protects almost all speech, but there are exceptions, like inciting to riot, or direct threats of violence, or defamation. The laws vary across countries. Moral and political philosophers who write on this issue vary in their conclusions too. I haven't devoted enough time and thought to the issue to have a strong opinion one way or the other yet.
I, so far, identified "Slippery Slope" with a typically normative argument: from a conservative opinion "We must not allow A, else B will follow". Well-knon example in the current debate: "If gay marriage is allowed, marriage with animals and sex with children will soon be legal"
Besides the mere chain of conditional claims, there is always the topos of the well-established consensus, that must not be jeopardized, else absurde szenes of chaos will invariably ensure. "We must tread on that S.S."
How is the .49 at the end of this video figured?
For D to happens from A, you need to times the probability of A following B, B following C, and C following D.
0.9*0.6*0.9 = 0.486 (around 0.49)
thank you.
Lets fart
I was wondering, under what condition are slippery slope arguments not fallacious?
+neroysc I can think of one example, The Patriot Act.
+neroysc When you realize that it's true more often than not, just give or take a generation indoctrinated in the new "right" system of beliefs. In twenty years it'll be legal to marry dogs.
+CsyoREN If the evidences or the continuity of premises have been proven, pragmatically or scientifically speakin. Then the claimed will then be true, which makes the conclusion to holds a certain credibility of it being the actual outcome, to the first premise that has been stated for that argument. Although the form of this format is not valid. But it's used all the time, either by educators or assumptious people that acts as a dilettante in their everyday life.
@socrates856 i agree 100%!
Isn't this modus tonens x 2?
Back in the old days we didn't have all this bullshit, jargon. We called certain thoughts, "assumtions". However, slippery slopes will cause you to fall. That is just a given. So certain ways of thinking can and will eventually, allow worse things to happen. Certain logical fallacies are more modern memes that were invented to restrict freedom of speech and religion. If I can get you to believe that all your thoughts are fallacies and that only mine are what you should accept by restricting your ability to express, truth, then you are easy prey.
6:52 Awkward moment when the coin lands on it's edge.
Is "love hurts" a slippery slope fallacy?
setting up the odds
Ups some1 fell into to gamblers fallacy there on the coin toss example XD ( or m I mistaken) Great video tough all of them.
I only want my children flipping burgers as a franchisee owner. I started there and it is not a long term solution. Great to start off but not as a career.
Subscribed.
word of advice...don't argue this with Mom
This reminds me of Rick Santorum's "Gay marriage leads to polygamy" argument.
It's a "strawman" fallacy. The SS fallacy uses a bad example. The assumed consequences in this example are possible. The claimed consequence is a valid indication of the direction which the actions undertaken will lead. The poster also ignores the rather obvious element of hyperbole. The video is a fallacy of equivocation.
Example of Slipper slope gone right (or wrong): allowing homosexuals to marry made it possible for drag queen story hours in a matter of few years.
@TheAlex5552 Poe's Law, we meet again.
When it comes to the lgbt folks, the slippery slope was never a fallacy.
I did not envy those kids.
A: rising consumption >>> B: rising CO2 emissions >>> C: global warming >>> D: people are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing
Climate Change is not a slippery slope fallacy because each one of those steps is backed up by sound reasoning and scientific data. Like the video says A -> B -> C-> D can be a valid argument form if the premises are correct.
@@tissueboxmajor4903 I didn't state that tge idea of climate change is a slippery slope (btw. this is the perfect example of the strawman fallacy). My statement was that the causal link between climate change (C) and Greta Thunberg's vision of "people are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing" (D) isn't sound as it doesn't take into account already existing innovations such as desalination plants, GMO crops, vertical farms and dams (= affordable drinking water & food and rising sea levels are not insurmantable problems).
conclusion: don't go to Saturday school and pre-school is bad
:/ شدعوه محد فهم ، يمكن مقدر ألحق مره عالكلام بس العرض واضح
Isn't this the thing people used back then to oppose interracial marriage? Idk, but id rather everyone have the same rights because id hate to be in the other guys shoes
Calling something a Fallacy means you are saying the argument is ILLOGICAL, not that the argument is weak. Sorry but you utterly failed to demonstrate that the logic of Slippery Slope Arguments is illogical. In fact your initial image is in support of the statement that they indeed are logical. You can make both a weak and a strong slippery slope argument, but whether the argument is good or bad has no bearing on whether or not it is a fallacy. It may be the case that there is only a 50% chance that D occurs, but the argument is that allowing A with a 50% chance of D happening if we do is not worth the risk
in short, dont give a mouse a cookie.
هههههههه ياسبحاان الله انا الوحيد الي فهمت كلامه كله
*Blocked video on my kids account so that he cannot counter my weak chain
@TheAlex5552
> :)
>:)
> :)
>:)
> :)
u don't need a top collage/university
+Assassin4Life college*, eh maybe you do.
@saadsaudA اعتقد انك ارسطو غرفة نومك .. صح؟
LOL, this fallacy is always being made by every religious people.
Actually, this is done by both sides.. I've caught myself arguing for 'no theism in science' ..... '100 years our children would be fully educated and we'd have a strong economy'..
Gary Sanders Purrfect! A sigh of relief. Noticed N admitted. Like fn 12 step programme. ;) Authority Deffo likewise. Science
Gary Sanders them
You just made an over-generalization fallacy. Using words like "always", "never", "all", etc.
If you don't believe in god, where do you get your moral code? Therefore, if you don't believe in god, you will murder people.
اللي جاي من تويتر مالك نجر ومو داري وش السالفه ويدور ترجمة عربي يعطيني لايك
انتوا من يعطيكم وجه معلومات تفتح مخكم المقفل يا عاطلين
تعلموا يمكن حد يوظفكم
نجر مصدق نفسه ارسطوا هذه الامه
Thats a strawman.