I need more data about his power, I want to assume he would teleport the entire world’s clothes onto his body and be wrapped in a ton of clothes because it sounds funny but that would be an apple and oranges fallacy
@@calebmurray4438 He can teleport himself and other objects. He teleported the t.v. There's no reason he couldn't teleport someone's clothes to a location other than his own body. Tho, it'd be funny
so, basically, in order to avoid falling for the fallacy, instead of saying "A *will* result in B", one just needs to say "A *can* result in B", since the problem is the certainty of the catastrophic outcome the subject is supposedly trying to avoid
Pretty much. The issue of the slippery slope fallacy is that it's basically an assumption that every piece that involves event 'A' to end up as result 'Z' will fall PERFECTLY into place, which is another way of saying that because of event 'A', they assume result 'Z' is 100% inevitable
Yeah, and it should be immediately apparent how much of a weaker claim it is (though more accurate), as there are many other outcomes that are equally likely.
Grossly oversimplified, and I'm pretty sure the video never meant to say that. It says more of how unlikely it is that B will happen, or that B's almost impossible occurence has anything to do with A. "Can" could still be taken to mean the sequence of events is more probable than DoR was trying to explain.
Still, it is hard to predict how the public will react to something or the exact chance of something occurring. Saying can is still more accurate than saying will. For example, you know that a coin or die will have a certain chance of one happening. A coin has 50-50 chance for heads or tails. A die has a 1 in 6 chance for any side. But say you have an irregular die with an unknown number of faces. Some sides have a higher or lower chance of happening. You have to find out how likely a specific side will face up. A common way is too roll a certain number of times and record the number of times that side faces up. This gives a decent percentage to guess with, but it can't be for sure 100% accurate since you could be lucky a few rolls or not. If you could use math, count how many sides it has, and measure each side if they are different sizes, then you could get a better number out of it. When dealing with what could happen with the public as a whole is a little harder, from something like a war to how people react to an ad. Someone has to look back at previous times with similar events to make a judgment and they can't just roll a die to help them. And that sometimes might not help at all. Many different factors play into why something happened and that can change with time. I mentioned ads earlier. Ads that were popular in the past, if use today may get a different reaction from the public due to what was acceptable or common back then may not be now. Even then, for someone to calculate a chance, that same something had to have happened before, and preferably multiple times.
yeah, calling slippery slope has always confused me because i always think one can make a reasonable argument to prove their point- dk if they ever do tho
Unfortunately, Domino Theory led to the US propping up hard right dictators in many nations, especially Central America, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today.
@@triccele y argentina, y casi toda America central, en Uruguay aún hay gente que no tiene respuesta de sus familiares desaparecidos, aquí en colombia mataron la única posibilidad de progreso ( aparte de quitarnos Panamá) en Panamá en los 90's invadieron.. en Venezuela están hasta el borde con los bloqueos..toda Latinoamérica tiene cuentas pendientes con USA.
Ultimately the issue is that you just don’t know what the numbers are or how long the chain is.... it’s only a fallacy insofar as the steps aren’t logical progressions and there are excessive numbers of steps. 4-5 reasonably likely steps leading to an outcome is not a necessarily a fallacy
Of course the more the steps the more the variation, but as long as there are more than one steps involved it's easy to fall into this fallacy. As you see from the last example if 25 steps have 99% probability of happening and only the last step has 50% chances, the total probability changes from 78% to 38%. So you need to look at and calculate the probability of each and every step, cause it will greatly affect the final outcome.
Exactly. I didn't think the mathematical argument was a particularly good one. Firstly, 78% is still quite a high chance, and secondly that figure is based on there being 26 steps, when in reality it's likely to be a lot fewer
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz it is based on it being 26 steps, sure. But that it would in reality be a lot fewer? I don't agree. Maybe only if you selectively consider the events you subjectively deem of importance. In reality every single micro-event - such as i a leader says something or doesn't, makes a visit to another leader or doesn't, etc, etc are also to consider an event possibly leading to another event. Also, even if reality would offer far less events, the likelihood for "winning" is not necessarily even close to the >80% on each of these events.
Assuming all the events in a chain are independent (3:00) isn't a reasonable assumption. When people are making a slippery slope argument, they are arguing precisely that the events are _not_ independent. And sure, assuming the events are independent makes the maths much, much less complicated, but I don't think that's a fair assumption to make in this kind of scenario. The principle the demon is making still stands, of course--that slippery slope arguments generally overstate the likelihood of the eventual outcome. I just wanted to nitpick this particular point.
Unfortunately this doesn’t hold up to reality after reading Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman human cognitive basis are hard to overcome even by professional statisticians and scientists
Stats aren't everything, as that only assumes randomness. Humans have agendas, and can push slippery slopes on purpose. Like authoritarian governments, for example.
Here's a physics perspective on this: if you're comparing something to dominoes you may as well be admiting defeat. An upright domino is a metastable state, it wants to fall over and is only waiting for the slightest excuse to do so. Stopping the first domino will not stop the last one from falling when a light breeze could cause any domino in the chain to go off. In comparing the red scare to a series of dominoes, Mr Eisenhower is inadvertently implying that the whole world actually really wants to be communist and is just waiting for a slight disturbance to catalyze that change.
You: You shouldn't smoke that cigarette, it will lead you to addiction, many more cigarettes and eventually lung cancer! Me, enlightened: *chuckles* Well, actually
Is it a logical fallacy to presume someone is speaking in absolute terms when they've made no such guarantee? This is a problem I've observed, regularly, in people who dismiss an argument as a "slippery slope fallacy," simply because their opponent predicted an outcome based on current circumstances remaining constant.
I think the main issue is when someone only acknowledges one possible outcome for a series of events in their argument. A person may not SAY that their presented outcome is the only one that could happen, but a refusal to consider alternative outcomes may retroactively make one’s proposition fall into a slippery slope fallacy.
The problem is that the slippery slope, the thin edge of the wedge, is not a fallacy, it's the modus operandi of a lot of groups. What is the next step, what is their end game should always be top of mind!
The problem with his argument is that he acts as those things are random. They are not. Virtually every time I have heard people speak of the slippery slope, they are talking about human driven events. If a domino does not fall, the people who want Z to happen can either try again to make it fall or skip it and knock the next one down. Politics on any scale is about people acting on other people, not people rolling dice
Exactly Its normally cases like "If we let the boss cut 10 cents of our wage soon he will be cutting a dollar" Its usually just another way to say "give them an inch they will take a mile"
3:07 An assumption of independence here doesn't really make a lot of sense. The whole idea of a slippery slope is that A causes B which causes C, which causes D and so on. With that kind of relationship, earlier events are influencing later ones and so they're obviously not all independent of each other.
True, but the further detail provided made it clear that they were assuming a 99% chance that A influences B, B influences C, etc. It seems that in this case the assumption of independence meant that A could directly influence B, and B could C, but that A had no direct effect on C, D, E, etc. to make the maths easier and more understandable.
Sure, but it's still a poor assumption. By their own admission, this kind of thing isn't a chain -- it's a web -- and hence it's very unlikely there would actually be such a simple relationship.
@@Lucky10279 The point they're illustrating is that even in such a simple depiction, the series of events occurring in such a way that disaster happens is possible, but it is by no means guaranteed. The likelihood is reduced the more non-guaranteed steps are required before the end result. Real situations are naturally much more complex than that, yet are reduced to 'A will lead to Z' all the same, and the video intends to spread awareness of this.
@@nathankurtz8045 My point is that the final probability could end up being high than the product of the the individual probabilities if you take dependencies into account.
Actually, just when the first domino falls, it doesn’t even make the last one fall certainly. Since my grammar sucks, I’ll explain it like this- imagine you are setting a row of dominos, with no precise measurement between each domino. You push the first domino, but halfway through, the chain stops. You wonder what has happened, and realise that the middle domino did not get enough force therefore didn’t fall, stopping the rest of the dominos from falling. Soo, there is not 100% accuracy that they will all fall even for dominos!
If you set up your dominoes, such that there's a gap that can cause the problem you state, you don't have a set of dominoes. You have two separate set of dominoes, which would equate to two separate event-chain arguments, not one long one. The domino premise contains the inherent implication that they were set up correctly.
Do people actually try to argue against a slipper slope fallacy by presenting the general statistical that any one thing can lead to any other thing? Instead of actually explaining the reasons it's likely or not? Like if I say people have eaten planes oranges so they'll half of everyone will eat metal in a few decades you say oh that's actually only 20% likely instead of explains how unreasonable that is based on historical context, people's behavior, health downsides and lack of motivation to eat things harmful to them etc.
I'm sure there are enough people saying this already that my input isn't necessary, But please keep making videos with the Demon of Reason :) They're so enjoyable!
It's interesting the instances in history where humans ignored the conditional probability being close to 1 as well. Like when they initially estimated the likelihood of nuclear meltdown they assigned arbitrarily small values for each step, but it was found the conditional probability was 1. Future conjectures are hard as it comes down to if the inductive step is realistic. As illustrated in the video totalitarianism wasn't guaranteed, so it was mostly rhetoric to gain a response
2:06 okay so canonically the Demon of Reason's powers are to remove people's clothing (which is kinda weird but whatever) and not, as I had initially assumed, to switch clothes with people. Additionally, we see them create entirely new outfits, which we can assume didn't previously exist somewhere because they are based off of random commercials that don't necessarily represent real products. Does the Demon of Reason have power over existing clothes beyond making them disappear? Could they just create, say, a hat instead of an entire outfit? Does their power apply to the materials the clothes are made of and, if so, could the Demon of Reason create other non-clothing items with those same materials? What about the use of metal and other non-fabric items in things like zippers/clasps, jewelry, and shoes? If someone made an outfit out of, say, glass, would the Demon be able to create and/or control it? Would they need to interact with that garment first or would they just suddenly gain more abilities? If the Demon of Reason's control only applies to outfits as separate entities and not to the materials or individual pieces involved, at what point does something become an outfit? Are unintentional additions considered part of the outfit (ie stains/rips/attached items)? I NEED ANSWERS!!!
There is a very important question this did not address: at what level of likelihood a given risk is worth taking. A given "Z" is going to be have it's given % chance to occur if A happens, and that Z is a given level of bad to have happen. Depending on what that Z is, how bad it is, only up to some % value is reasonable to risk. As stated in the video, if all the steps between A and Z have a 99% chance to happen, Z happening as result of Z is 78% likely. Over 3/4. Well, if Z is notably bad, that is too likely to risk. A shouldn't be allowed to happen due to the 78% chance of Z. No claim of a guarantee made, just accepting that a risk is too large. Depending on what Z is, how bad it is, 50% may be too big a risk. 33% may be too big a risk. 10% may be too big a risk. Determining the actual odds of Z due to A is only half the problem, you also have to determine what odds are too high to accept. The real fallacy is failing to consider the 2nd half of the problem.
This episode comes with great L O R E. The Demon of reason claims to be able to undress every person on the entire planet. What else might he be capable of?
Genuine question: Have the climate change claims/warnings been evaluated in this manner? Considering how usually the narrative always makes the outcome look inevitable
As the video points out at a later point the chances of more countries becoming communist and the chance of the whole world becoming communist are connected more in some kind of web than directly following one another. So better represented by a Bayesian network for example. That makes the original counterargument mostly moot. Contrary to the situation described with all independent chances that need to happen in order to cause te final situation Z (of course leading to a low chance for Z), events happening (/new knowledge) can increase the chance of other events happening. I think the main problem is that usually there are so many more factors in play than are presented in a slippery slope argument that this reduces the chances of the final event significantly and moreover reduces the effect of the other events on the chance for event Z. This is touched upon in the video but I believe it deserved more attention especially more than the following chances argument.
and you can pull the web in such a way that some of the strings gets shorter and the others get longer, which is what a slippery slope is, it makes certain events more probable.
@@hippopotamus_nr2587 probability of independent events is multiplied. For example, event A has a probability of 99%, while event B has a probability of 50%. In order to calculate the percentage that both events will happen, you multiply them. 0.99 times 0.5 is 0.495. So a 49.5% probability that both events will happen. There are more complicated things, like the order in which they happen and if they are dependent or not. But that’s the basic math principle they used in this video…
A few extra insights on slippery slopes: Most slippery slope arguments assume no intervention - no risk mitigation. This is like assuming once you get on a highway, you can't get off the highway until you reach the very end. That point brings up a good way to address slippery slope arguments instead of dismissing them outright. Accept the risks as valid concerns and develop a risk-mitigation plan to prevent those outcomes from happening. This is not unlike deciding which offramp you'll take before you end up at the end of the highway.
Very much this. The slippery slope is not as much of a falacy as some people believe it is. As in they immidiately dismiss the whole argument because it smells of slippery slope. Instead of adressing what would prevent it from turning into a slippery slope.
@@pewpin1039 I agree with you. There’s a difference between a weak argument and an invalid argument. Slippery slopes may not be the best logical arguments but the concerns generally are still valid and can sometimes justify action to mitigate the concerns.
I agree. HOWEVER... to use your (good) analogy, sometimes we're already on the highway headed for the end. We're trying to get off the highway as soon as possible because we know we're getting closer to the end and it's hard to get off. Sometimes others say "what's wrong with continuing to drive on this highway, we can always pull off at the very last exit." But that doesn't always work. Sometimes you're going too fast and you miss the last exit. Sometimes it's too late before you realize you missed it and now you're screwed.
@@UserNameAnonymous Just as there’s no good reason to completely dismiss the risks of a slippery slope argument, there’s no need to be reckless. Assessing risk-reward trades is part of due diligence.
Is the reason he always swaps outfits meant to be a reference to the Emperor Has No Clothes fable? Since in every episode he’s disproving an argument someone is making (thus showing that the emperor ‘has no clothes’)
He does this for like every video at the end. Like the one about correlation does not always mean causation. He said something like my popcorn got cold because my ice cream melted (They were in separate bowls).
I think it's also worth pointing out that what ultimately brought down Cambodia's genocidal government was a war with Vietnam. So while communism initially spread to Vietnam's neighboring countries, it's not like they were all buddy-buddy
@@saviet4222 Well, what do you mean by that? They stopped supporting them by 1973, before they had come to power. All in all, the US and China supported the faction for much longer, only ending support in 1993
Okay, but if you were having a political meeting and a demon appeared out of nowhere and snapped his fingers to swap clothes with the speaker at the meeting, would you interrupt him?
I really liked the set up, but I had hoped this video would explain the difference between slippery slopes that are true and slippery slopes that are false. For example, one effect can make another independent effect more likely and it is important to stay wary of how seemingly independent events can reinforce each other. A lot of the time, such seemingly independent events will be described fallaciously as being a slippery slope argument when it's a description of a systemic failure. This video doesn't do a good job explaining that.
The example used in the video is a good example of this. He assigns each variable as being independent, and a necessarily straight chain (although contradicts that idea later), when in reality, if Vietnam fell and that only directly caused Laos to fall, maybe that would give the two the strength needed to threaten Cambodia into place, which increases the likelihood of other countries falling so on and so forth. Not saying it’s likely, but the slippery slope is only a fallacy when you argue to discredit it, otherwise it’s called risk assessment and mitigation
As others in the comments section have pointed out, this video mischaracterizes the slippery slope argument with regard to the premise laid out in the opening quote from Alfred Acorn. It’s not the probability of a particular series of events unfolding to a very particular ultimate outcome (unless you’re the Kwisatz Haderach). It refers to the notion that once some moral or ideological thresholds are crossed, further reaches become increasingly indefensible. So you often hear “slippery slope” used in free speech arguments. For example, if we allow the powers that be punish speech that's deemed offensive, what’s to stop them from preventing any speech just because they don’t like it and who becomes the arbiter of what's considered offensive? From there, could they compel speech that suits their motives? And if so, what are the punishments for infractions? Fines? Imprisonment?
For those who don't want to read my entire reply below (TL;DR), this video is, sadly, of pretty poor quality to most put out in this series. President Eisenhower's answer, as directly quoted from Public Papers of the Presidents, 1954, p. 382: "You have, of course, both the specific and the general when you talk about such things. "First of all, you have the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs. "Then you have the possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world. "Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the 'falling domino' principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences. "Now, with respect to the first one, two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important. There are others, of course, the rubber plantations and so on. "Then with respect to more people passing under this domination, Asia, after all, has already lost some 450 million of its peoples to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can't afford greater losses. "But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you begin to talk about areas that not only multiply the disadvantages that you would suffer through loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are talking really about millions and millions and millions of people. "Finally, the geographical position achieved thereby does many things. It turns the so-called island defensive chain of Japan, Formosa, of the Philippines and to the southward; it moves in to threaten Australia and New Zealand. "It takes away, in its economic aspects, that region that Japan must have as a trading area or Japan, in turn, will have only one place in the world to go- that is, toward the Communist areas in order to live. "So, the possible consequences of the loss are just incalculable to the free world." You'll notice a few things, maybe. If you don't, let me point them out for you. 1. The statement alluded to in the video was not an individual statement, but rather a listing of several considerations when approaching Policy in the region. 2. The entirety of the third consideration, the focal point of the basis of this video, uses language multiple times such as "might", "could", and "possible." However, at timestamp 1:15, and these are your words exact, you claim "Eisenhower claims, that by virtue of what he calls the "falling domino principle", Communist control of Vietnam would be the "beginning of a disintegration" that would be certain to cause "incalculable loss." You use his quote, but you quote him incorrectly. His statement is that the third consideration "might" be of something, an analogy for that thing, followed by "could have" an outcome that "would have" profound influences. 3. While we're on the topic of the "Falling Domino" principle, at timestamp 1:10, you point out President Eisenhower's mention of the "falling domino pollicy with the words, and I quote, "what he calls the "falling domino principle." This doesn't mean he coined the phrase or originated the idea. But the wording of your call out is misleading. Intentional? The point is, the first mentions and uses of the "principle" are generally attributed to President Harry S. Truman in the 1940's, to justify sending support to Greece and Turkey. 4. Finally, as President Eisenhower points out in his last sentence, all the preceding points to his third consideration are "possible consequences" and that the extent of those consequences are incalculable. That is, from point a in the argument to point zed, there is a path. It is a "possible path." President Eisenhower may even have believed it was the probable path. His point was that if, if that path progressed to point zed, the loss would be incalculable. Of course, let's not forget that there have been many examples through history since then of just such attempts at 'exporting' control and Communism past the borders of the USSR, and in the guise of a freely elected government, Russia in the more current time. And lastly, even when an argument depends on the possibility of a chain of events you may deem a 'slippery slope' argument, that reliance does not necessarily invalidate that argument. There are many examples of action taken on strings of chance happenings, each dependent on the prior step. What makes these arguments compelling is the consideration of the relationship of risk to impact. You may rightly point out that at each step the odds of a thing happening drop, versus my argument that they may still happen. But if the impact of that event is consequential enough, it must still be valid. The steps, or web of possible steps, to being struck by lightning are there being a storm, one of us being outside, a lightning strike happening, that bolt strikes you or me. That's a horrible framework for the argument that in a storm you and I should remain safely inside. And yet, it's not an invalid argument in relation to both the possible outcome should you or I be struck and the fact that people have been struck. Of all your videos, this one is the only to not sit well with me. But I must say it sits rather poorly. .
@@konchady yes, and must use a circumstance where the slippery slope did not come to pass; when it has many times before. Indeed, Liberalism actually shows that the Domino Theory is what least somewhat valid, as that is how it spread between 1776/89-1918.
For people who don't agree with the logic explained here. The demon doesn't have an issue with talking about possibilities that may or may not happen, or events that don't have a 100% chance of happening. Sure, discuss all possible scenarios, especially the one extreme case you're worried might happen. The issue here is that politicians tend to exaggerate some extreme event as something which is inevitable, simply to suit their own political goals. Misinforming the people, using fear-mongering to justify your wars. Maybe don't lie to your people? And don't exaggerate stuff just to justify your political stance.
The slippery slope argument has bad uses, but I can also be used legitimately with real concern, bad policies and dystopian changes can slowly ruin a society, kind of like boiling ba frog alive slowly Your math was wrong, you used his bad logic to use math as dominos, in reality, one bad scenario might have multiple 50% chances, meaning at least one of those chances could come true. Anyway, I hope I got my point across, just because he used the argument wrongly, doesn't mean it's entirely a logical fallacy
@@fissionplane32 that's not the point of the video. People misuse numbers and statistics to justify their own goals, literally mislead the public- that's the point here. Sure the extreme event could be highly possible, but it's wrong and misleading to say it's the ONLY possible outcome. Also, Slippery slope IS a logical fallacy, they literally explained the math in the video.
@@alexbanks4219 yeah ok, I guess the president put out a not-well-thought-through statement, but neither did ted ed, they claimed that we should avoid using slippery slopes in an argument, which pissed me off because of how prevalent slippery slopes are
@@fissionplane32 I mean, I feel it is better to avoid them too, because people have a tendency to exaggerate stuff to suit their opinions and needs. Why not use better techniques than an argument that people tend to misuse?
Just because something's a fallacy, doesn't mean the argument is wrong/bad. Fallacies only indicate logical gaps in argumentation, and should not be used to dismiss arguments. You should do an episode on "the Fallacy Fallacy" for all of the insufferable people in this comment section and around the world.
@@noobestofdamall False. Choosing one standard by which to evaluate everything is foolish. Argumentation by logic is not the only way to make a good argument. Argument from experience; argument by experimentation, empirical/forensic argument; circumstantial argument; pathos & ethos argumentation; etc. Even if logical argumentation were the only appropriate standard, a single logical fallacy does not deconstruct an entire argument except for in the very strictest sense. If your argument consists of some 30 or so axioms, premises, and deductions, a single logical gap may not do much to affect the conclusion, provided the other steps are sound. For instance, the slippery slope in the video assumes that an entire argument is wrong only because the final conclusion does not manifest, but in real life, a slippery slope argument often implies that any progression in that direction is bad and that the further the progress, the worse it is. If someone is concerned about A leading to Z and, instead, A leads to W, it is little consolation in saying, "See? I told you that you were wrong!" No. In that case, they were mostly right -- much more so than the person who claims, "That's just a slippery slope fallacy!"
@@mr.johnson3844 I've never heard it called a "Slippery Slope Fallacy" before which is what made this a bit odd to me. I took philosophy classes in college a decade ago so I'm definitely rusty, but I don't understand why a more simple example was used.
@@Jaigarful this was brought-up in my high school speach class and i mostly took it with a grain of salt. i felt too much emphasis was placed on "bad argument" than considering actual evidence or trends. flawed logic in and of itself. these videos seem to be targeting major historical incidences and how logical fallacies can ruin/end peoples' lives. this isn't really the best example, though...
Great logical breakdown of the slippery slope fallacy. However, most of the time people who use it are reacting to fear or at least using fear to manipulate and absolutely refuse to look at or acknowledge logic and reason. Where we make the mistake is to constantly engage the manipulator and try to change their minds, which is not going to happen, especially when we keep featuring them and giving them a platform and recognition. We should be engaging the rest of people with logic, reason, and education and show them how to combat manipulation of emotions (like this video is doing).
These are great videos. It's easy to dismiss them as overly simple, pedantic, or basic common sense, but you have to remind yourself that people, masses of people, actually fall down these pits and cause events that change the world. I do believe a certain wall in American politics is very related to a slippery slope argument, and look at the following it earned its proponent. The most important thing is to remember that you're probably not immune to the pits yourself, though, and these videos are clear-cut reminders of the idea.
This is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the facts. He didn't use a slippery slope argument. The WWII veteran, hero, and supreme commander of the allied forces said: “You have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the ‘falling domino’ principle.” Eisenhower expanded on this thought, explaining, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly.” This would lead to disintegration in Southeast Asia, with the “loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following.” Eisenhower suggested that even Japan, which needed Southeast Asia for trade, *would be in danger.*" And he was right. Those countries did fall. He did not say Japan and Australia and the rest of the world would fall. He said Japan would be in danger. There is a HUGE difference between what a slippery slope fallacy is and understanding the Geo political environment in combination with military and economical concerns from someone who was not far removed from the last global conflict.
"Babe wake up, a new Demon of Reason video just dropped." not my comment, somebody else posted it on a different demon video, i just thought it was funny.
Around 4th minute you mention steps A-Z leading to something and their probabilities. However, you're entirely omitting the fact that there can be a number of ways for A to lead to Z. If, for example, our A is a cup being thrown from our hand, and Z being the cup's contents spilled, we can have a number of middle steps. The cup can fall on the ground, it can hit a wall, it can smash against the ceiling. Each possibility only has some likelihood, but overall likelihood of Z happening will be equal to their sum.
I don't think the slippery slope argument is completely wrong. It will have some applications, and honestly it wasn't wrong to try to contain communism to other countries, but the execution was often wrong (like in South America when CIA supported tyrants to combat communism and serve corporate interests). But Korea without US intervention would be completely horrible, and many other Asian countries were probably deterred from becoming communist out of a general fear of American intervention (e.g. the communist party in the Philippines never really took off). If we had just ignored the affairs of Asia, it would probably be communist by now, maybe even a Chinese USSR, with North Korea like dictators a standard place...
Slippery slope arguments usually rest on the idea that human beings respect precedents and clear boundary lines, but once those precedents and boundary lines are broken, it is hard to establish new ones. Due to human psychology, they are usually not fallacies.
Thinking back to my college years and Philosophy classes, I don't think I've ever heard it presented as a "Slippery Slope Fallacy". Its was always presented as a "Slippery Slope Argument".
I'm going to beg to differ with this video for three reasons: 1. The Domino Theory never claimed that the whole world would fall to communism, rather that it could if nothing was done to prevent it. If I say that throwing a snowball on a mountain may cause an avalanche, I am not saying that it inevitably will. I am saying that there is a chance it may, and that we can reduce that chance by building dams or other safety structures, or by simply not throwing the snowball in the first place. Likewise, Domino Theory was a call to arms with the intent of preventing the spread of communism. Had the world done nothing, domino theory could very well have been fulfilled. 2. Domino Theory does not imply a single line of dominoes falling in a neat A-Z order as the video assumes. Dominoes often can be arranged so that one domino hits two or three others, splitting off into all kinds of different branches and patterns. The video said that "a web" was a better analogy, but there is not necessarily a contradiction between a web and a sprawling, branching set of dominos. The two need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, dominos are a better analogy overall because they imply causation, whereas a web does not. So, really, the Domino theory communicates better how the fall of Vietnam might cause the further spread of communism, which was Eisenhower's correct argument. 3. Domino Theory was based on started communist ideology and goals. Communism was never content with one or two countries. Rather, it required constant expansion in order to survive. The main point of Domino theory is that as communism expands, more people and resources come under its control, thereby making its further expansion easier. Like the Huns in ancient Asia, the further the conquest, the faster it accelerates. This is not a "slippery slope" argument, but rather a statement of the laws of synergy. Therefore, there is no fallacy in Domino Theory, just a warning bell to all nations based on correct interpretations of reality as it then was.
The problem isn’t that such an event is “inevitable”, just that we should treat it as such. There are countless examples of slippery slopes that have happened and especially when each step is catastrophic at some level then it becomes more dire. As the outcome increases in how severe the result would be, the more you have to treat it like it’s a guarantee, even if it’s not. Anything that threatens the well fare of millions should be treated like it’s inevitable even if it’s a small chance. The worse the possible result, the more you need to treat it like it will happen. 50/50 odds that you might run out of milk over the weekend? Who cares. A 0.1% chance millions of people will die? Pour everything you’ve got into it to make sure that we get the number lower.
I don't think the examples you provide are exactly similar to the ones provided on the video. The point of the slippery slope falacy is not whether or not catastrophic predictions should be treated seriously, but rather that *portraying* a potential outcome as catastrophic with a large number of potential factors in the middle is not logical. The fact that *some* examples of slippery slopes have become true doesn't prove or disprove that other slippery slopes are more likely to come true. That's a hasty generalization. If a single event is probable, no matter how unlikely, we should prepare for it. If a single event is the consequence of a long string of events, we should prepare for the problems at the start of that string of events, not the last one, which is the point that is made in the video.
Except it's all propaganda and charisma. Most of the leaders in charge rarely believe these statements, but make them to increase patriotism among their own constituents. With the shortened time between events and reporting nowadays it's getting more creative.
They have a weird hero complex. Though many countries like to see themselves as heros. It is a demagogic tool. But Western countries are usually a bit more self-critical especially with their history.
And we're seeing it today. The moral fabric of our civilization has been slowly corroded by malicious actors and their sheep. It wont stop. Zoo files are next they're already gaining acceptance
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
TW: Please note that this video features a strobe effect at 5:28.
Hiiiii 🤗
What's Strobe Effect?
Hiiii
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
@@notsezz5318 woah really? i've been scammed!!!!! /s
Ok, but can we talk about how cool his apartment/house is? The demon of reason has a sense of style despite having a very empty closet.
Humanity _is_ his closet, and it makes it's own clothes for him too!
Lmao
it was either the house or a full closet
"Don't worry, I may have that power, but I promise not to use it."
TedED knows how much we like to see him stealing clothes🤣
Him?
I need more data about his power, I want to assume he would teleport the entire world’s clothes onto his body and be wrapped in a ton of clothes because it sounds funny but that would be an apple and oranges fallacy
@@calebmurray4438 The Demon of Reason's Final Smash is just that, but then he rolls over his opponents in a ball of all the clothes on Earth /j
Didn’t Palpatine say that?
@@calebmurray4438 He can teleport himself and other objects. He teleported the t.v. There's no reason he couldn't teleport someone's clothes to a location other than his own body. Tho, it'd be funny
so, basically, in order to avoid falling for the fallacy, instead of saying "A *will* result in B", one just needs to say "A *can* result in B", since the problem is the certainty of the catastrophic outcome the subject is supposedly trying to avoid
Pretty much. The issue of the slippery slope fallacy is that it's basically an assumption that every piece that involves event 'A' to end up as result 'Z' will fall PERFECTLY into place, which is another way of saying that because of event 'A', they assume result 'Z' is 100% inevitable
Yeah, and it should be immediately apparent how much of a weaker claim it is (though more accurate), as there are many other outcomes that are equally likely.
Grossly oversimplified, and I'm pretty sure the video never meant to say that. It says more of how unlikely it is that B will happen, or that B's almost impossible occurence has anything to do with A. "Can" could still be taken to mean the sequence of events is more probable than DoR was trying to explain.
Still, it is hard to predict how the public will react to something or the exact chance of something occurring. Saying can is still more accurate than saying will. For example, you know that a coin or die will have a certain chance of one happening. A coin has 50-50 chance for heads or tails. A die has a 1 in 6 chance for any side. But say you have an irregular die with an unknown number of faces. Some sides have a higher or lower chance of happening. You have to find out how likely a specific side will face up. A common way is too roll a certain number of times and record the number of times that side faces up. This gives a decent percentage to guess with, but it can't be for sure 100% accurate since you could be lucky a few rolls or not. If you could use math, count how many sides it has, and measure each side if they are different sizes, then you could get a better number out of it. When dealing with what could happen with the public as a whole is a little harder, from something like a war to how people react to an ad. Someone has to look back at previous times with similar events to make a judgment and they can't just roll a die to help them. And that sometimes might not help at all. Many different factors play into why something happened and that can change with time. I mentioned ads earlier. Ads that were popular in the past, if use today may get a different reaction from the public due to what was acceptable or common back then may not be now. Even then, for someone to calculate a chance, that same something had to have happened before, and preferably multiple times.
yeah, calling slippery slope has always confused me because i always think one can make a reasonable argument to prove their point- dk if they ever do tho
0:17 The Canadian River continuously apologizing as it breaks the poor beaver's log dam.
Unfortunately, Domino Theory led to the US propping up hard right dictators in many nations, especially Central America, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today.
NATO: Destabilises central america and near east.
Also NATO: "Why are there so many immigrants and refugees coming?"
tfw Afghanistan
And south america..
Also South America. We Chileans are still fighting the consecuences of the dictator put in charge of our country by the USA.
@@triccele y argentina, y casi toda America central, en Uruguay aún hay gente que no tiene respuesta de sus familiares desaparecidos, aquí en colombia mataron la única posibilidad de progreso ( aparte de quitarnos Panamá) en Panamá en los 90's invadieron.. en Venezuela están hasta el borde con los bloqueos..toda Latinoamérica tiene cuentas pendientes con USA.
I'm happy to see this becoming a series like "history vs".
Ultimately the issue is that you just don’t know what the numbers are or how long the chain is.... it’s only a fallacy insofar as the steps aren’t logical progressions and there are excessive numbers of steps.
4-5 reasonably likely steps leading to an outcome is not a necessarily a fallacy
Of course the more the steps the more the variation, but as long as there are more than one steps involved it's easy to fall into this fallacy. As you see from the last example if 25 steps have 99% probability of happening and only the last step has 50% chances, the total probability changes from 78% to 38%. So you need to look at and calculate the probability of each and every step, cause it will greatly affect the final outcome.
Exactly. I didn't think the mathematical argument was a particularly good one. Firstly, 78% is still quite a high chance, and secondly that figure is based on there being 26 steps, when in reality it's likely to be a lot fewer
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz it is based on it being 26 steps, sure. But that it would in reality be a lot fewer? I don't agree. Maybe only if you selectively consider the events you subjectively deem of importance. In reality every single micro-event - such as i a leader says something or doesn't, makes a visit to another leader or doesn't, etc, etc are also to consider an event possibly leading to another event.
Also, even if reality would offer far less events, the likelihood for "winning" is not necessarily even close to the >80% on each of these events.
@@mahnas92 But are all of those events independent though?
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz they are probably dependent, as you are implying - but that makes every single event even less likely
This is my favorite series! Thanks for posting another one!
Assuming all the events in a chain are independent (3:00) isn't a reasonable assumption. When people are making a slippery slope argument, they are arguing precisely that the events are _not_ independent. And sure, assuming the events are independent makes the maths much, much less complicated, but I don't think that's a fair assumption to make in this kind of scenario. The principle the demon is making still stands, of course--that slippery slope arguments generally overstate the likelihood of the eventual outcome. I just wanted to nitpick this particular point.
I love the sound effect that plays when he makes a portal
I feel like if everyone took a stats class the world would get along better
Yezzir Miller
Unfortunately this doesn’t hold up to reality after reading Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman human cognitive basis are hard to overcome even by professional statisticians and scientists
Stats aren't everything, as that only assumes randomness. Humans have agendas, and can push slippery slopes on purpose. Like authoritarian governments, for example.
Here's a physics perspective on this: if you're comparing something to dominoes you may as well be admiting defeat. An upright domino is a metastable state, it wants to fall over and is only waiting for the slightest excuse to do so. Stopping the first domino will not stop the last one from falling when a light breeze could cause any domino in the chain to go off. In comparing the red scare to a series of dominoes, Mr Eisenhower is inadvertently implying that the whole world actually really wants to be communist and is just waiting for a slight disturbance to catalyze that change.
You: You shouldn't smoke that cigarette, it will lead you to addiction, many more cigarettes and eventually lung cancer!
Me, enlightened: *chuckles* Well, actually
I love these fallacy videos! Keep it up! Would love to learn more
2:07 me: you can do that? *in demon of reason voice* really?
How to contradict the statement in own words:
Dont worry i have that power but im promising not to use it.
Is it a logical fallacy to presume someone is speaking in absolute terms when they've made no such guarantee? This is a problem I've observed, regularly, in people who dismiss an argument as a "slippery slope fallacy," simply because their opponent predicted an outcome based on current circumstances remaining constant.
I think a slippery slope is a conjecture, not a falacy.
I think the main issue is when someone only acknowledges one possible outcome for a series of events in their argument. A person may not SAY that their presented outcome is the only one that could happen, but a refusal to consider alternative outcomes may retroactively make one’s proposition fall into a slippery slope fallacy.
I love that the Demon of Reason touches a bit on fearmongering and catastrophizing with this fallacy! Great work from the team :)
Bro I sacrificed watching Netflix to watch the demon of reason and I'm not complaining about it
The problem is that the slippery slope, the thin edge of the wedge, is not a fallacy, it's the modus operandi of a lot of groups. What is the next step, what is their end game should always be top of mind!
And theyll only admit to it after the endgame occurs.
The problem with his argument is that he acts as those things are random. They are not. Virtually every time I have heard people speak of the slippery slope, they are talking about human driven events. If a domino does not fall, the people who want Z to happen can either try again to make it fall or skip it and knock the next one down.
Politics on any scale is about people acting on other people, not people rolling dice
Exactly
Its normally cases like
"If we let the boss cut 10 cents of our wage soon he will be cutting a dollar"
Its usually just another way to say "give them an inch they will take a mile"
I like how Eisenhower is drawn looking like a phallus.
These videos are fantastic. Would love to see all the logical fallacies tackled. Excellent work!
Never make the mistake of confusing slippery slopes with deliberate policy decisions.
3:07 An assumption of independence here doesn't really make a lot of sense. The whole idea of a slippery slope is that A causes B which causes C, which causes D and so on. With that kind of relationship, earlier events are influencing later ones and so they're obviously not all independent of each other.
True, but the further detail provided made it clear that they were assuming a 99% chance that A influences B, B influences C, etc. It seems that in this case the assumption of independence meant that A could directly influence B, and B could C, but that A had no direct effect on C, D, E, etc. to make the maths easier and more understandable.
Sure, but it's still a poor assumption. By their own admission, this kind of thing isn't a chain -- it's a web -- and hence it's very unlikely there would actually be such a simple relationship.
@@Lucky10279 The point they're illustrating is that even in such a simple depiction, the series of events occurring in such a way that disaster happens is possible, but it is by no means guaranteed. The likelihood is reduced the more non-guaranteed steps are required before the end result.
Real situations are naturally much more complex than that, yet are reduced to 'A will lead to Z' all the same, and the video intends to spread awareness of this.
@@nathankurtz8045 My point is that the final probability could end up being high than the product of the the individual probabilities if you take dependencies into account.
Actually, just when the first domino falls, it doesn’t even make the last one fall certainly. Since my grammar sucks, I’ll explain it like this- imagine you are setting a row of dominos, with no precise measurement between each domino. You push the first domino, but halfway through, the chain stops. You wonder what has happened, and realise that the middle domino did not get enough force therefore didn’t fall, stopping the rest of the dominos from falling. Soo, there is not 100% accuracy that they will all fall even for dominos!
If you set up your dominoes, such that there's a gap that can cause the problem you state, you don't have a set of dominoes. You have two separate set of dominoes, which would equate to two separate event-chain arguments, not one long one. The domino premise contains the inherent implication that they were set up correctly.
@@thesong7877 Ah ok, sorry!
the first domino is a causal factor of the last one falling
"Humans are so interesting"
-Shinigami of death note.
Demon of Reason -
Even knocking over dominos has no guarantee that they will all fall.
Best explanation of this fallacy ever. Ever.
i like watching videos about logic fallacies
don't know why
"Two weeks to flatten the curve."
Ironically in his calculations he made a massive assumption
Do people actually try to argue against a slipper slope fallacy by presenting the general statistical that any one thing can lead to any other thing? Instead of actually explaining the reasons it's likely or not?
Like if I say people have eaten planes oranges so they'll half of everyone will eat metal in a few decades you say oh that's actually only 20% likely instead of explains how unreasonable that is based on historical context, people's behavior, health downsides and lack of motivation to eat things harmful to them etc.
I'm sure there are enough people saying this already that my input isn't necessary,
But please keep making videos with the Demon of Reason :)
They're so enjoyable!
It's interesting the instances in history where humans ignored the conditional probability being close to 1 as well. Like when they initially estimated the likelihood of nuclear meltdown they assigned arbitrarily small values for each step, but it was found the conditional probability was 1. Future conjectures are hard as it comes down to if the inductive step is realistic. As illustrated in the video totalitarianism wasn't guaranteed, so it was mostly rhetoric to gain a response
I love how he always shows up and steals the other person’s shirt.
Please make a video on story of john of arc . I never understood it
More of this please
Hooray! Always love seeing the Demon of Reason! More please!
Yeah you can it's called having morals, which is absent in most people.
2:06 okay so canonically the Demon of Reason's powers are to remove people's clothing (which is kinda weird but whatever) and not, as I had initially assumed, to switch clothes with people. Additionally, we see them create entirely new outfits, which we can assume didn't previously exist somewhere because they are based off of random commercials that don't necessarily represent real products. Does the Demon of Reason have power over existing clothes beyond making them disappear? Could they just create, say, a hat instead of an entire outfit? Does their power apply to the materials the clothes are made of and, if so, could the Demon of Reason create other non-clothing items with those same materials? What about the use of metal and other non-fabric items in things like zippers/clasps, jewelry, and shoes? If someone made an outfit out of, say, glass, would the Demon be able to create and/or control it? Would they need to interact with that garment first or would they just suddenly gain more abilities? If the Demon of Reason's control only applies to outfits as separate entities and not to the materials or individual pieces involved, at what point does something become an outfit? Are unintentional additions considered part of the outfit (ie stains/rips/attached items)? I NEED ANSWERS!!!
Please make more of these
Demon of Reason is iconic! I love watching these fallacies!
He’s back! Yesssss!!!
1:09 So this is tenet in reverse
There is a very important question this did not address: at what level of likelihood a given risk is worth taking.
A given "Z" is going to be have it's given % chance to occur if A happens, and that Z is a given level of bad to have happen.
Depending on what that Z is, how bad it is, only up to some % value is reasonable to risk.
As stated in the video, if all the steps between A and Z have a 99% chance to happen, Z happening as result of Z is 78% likely. Over 3/4.
Well, if Z is notably bad, that is too likely to risk. A shouldn't be allowed to happen due to the 78% chance of Z. No claim of a guarantee made, just accepting that a risk is too large.
Depending on what Z is, how bad it is, 50% may be too big a risk. 33% may be too big a risk. 10% may be too big a risk.
Determining the actual odds of Z due to A is only half the problem, you also have to determine what odds are too high to accept.
The real fallacy is failing to consider the 2nd half of the problem.
This episode comes with great L O R E. The Demon of reason claims to be able to undress every person on the entire planet. What else might he be capable of?
I love these videos. So useful in the real world, and I think reason like this is really important.
I just had a convo with my parents for like 20 minutes about slippery slopes. Technology listening to us for effective ads seems like a slippery slope
And this is why I still haven't been able to chain hunt a shiny in pokemon bdsp
Genuine question: Have the climate change claims/warnings been evaluated in this manner? Considering how usually the narrative always makes the outcome look inevitable
This is how you discern whether or not anyone alleging they can see the future may simply by using deduction
banning assault rifles will lead to banning kitchen knives
@@crabsaresilly8317 damn do you have ESPN or something?
M.K. Gandhi's famous words, "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" is a slippery slope fallacy?? 😖
at 3:04 the steps from A to Z are 24, so if you include A and Z that's the whole alphabet. Neat little detail
As the video points out at a later point the chances of more countries becoming communist and the chance of the whole world becoming communist are connected more in some kind of web than directly following one another. So better represented by a Bayesian network for example. That makes the original counterargument mostly moot. Contrary to the situation described with all independent chances that need to happen in order to cause te final situation Z (of course leading to a low chance for Z), events happening (/new knowledge) can increase the chance of other events happening. I think the main problem is that usually there are so many more factors in play than are presented in a slippery slope argument that this reduces the chances of the final event significantly and moreover reduces the effect of the other events on the chance for event Z. This is touched upon in the video but I believe it deserved more attention especially more than the following chances argument.
So its only a slippery slope fallacy if you know the future? At the time they do not know how things would turn out.
If we don't reduce global warming to 1.5 Celsius now we're gonna have big weather catastrophies in front of us.
great video
woah i’ve never been this early
Same lol
Same
Same pinchh
You're earlier than me, but 5 mins is still a record for me lol
Me too
These outsmart fallacies are my favourite by far, next to the riddles
I love story of Vietnam. All hail Vietnam!
There’s a lot of fallacies. I think we’re in for a long ride with the Demon of Reason.
Could I have the Demon of Reason as a plushie for my internet culture plushie collection?
It feels like i've seen the thumbnail before...? Am i going mad?
For being a Demon of Reason, you think by now he remember to bring his own suit
An excellent point!
It might result to everyone wearing a suit in everyday wear 🙃
There's a reason behind it
@@ChristianOctavianus A recurring motif, I presume.
Well, he has no reason to.
*_"The possibilities are not a chain -- they're a web."_*
My favorite quote from this episode!
and you can pull the web in such a way that some of the strings gets shorter and the others get longer, which is what a slippery slope is, it makes certain events more probable.
I hate people who want to require me to lock my car doors
Every parent and teacher telling you that one bad grade will lead to you being homeless 😠
but i don't get the math he uses to calculate the percentages, so maybe i will become homeless :(
You will become homeless y'know, when you get kicked by your parent, they're doesn't predict bad grades lead to homeless, they'me make it happen
@@hippopotamus_nr2587 probability of independent events is multiplied. For example, event A has a probability of 99%, while event B has a probability of 50%. In order to calculate the percentage that both events will happen, you multiply them. 0.99 times 0.5 is 0.495. So a 49.5% probability that both events will happen. There are more complicated things, like the order in which they happen and if they are dependent or not. But that’s the basic math principle they used in this video…
@@adityashirolkar5038 oooow, thx, appreciate it
Or when they define a "bad grade" as anything less than a A-
Oversimplified was right. Drawing Eisenhower is very hard
there‘s a tax for that
@jveilleux38 jveilleux38 DUDE!
SO uncool.
Yeah and all that but you know what easy?
Honey!
Awww..
..wait a minute! He’s Eisenhower! He’s not hard to draw! YOU are hard to draw!
@@bigboots1177 Sacre-BLEUUUUUUUUUU!!!!
The demon of reason's back, and I couldn't be more excited.
A few extra insights on slippery slopes:
Most slippery slope arguments assume no intervention - no risk mitigation. This is like assuming once you get on a highway, you can't get off the highway until you reach the very end.
That point brings up a good way to address slippery slope arguments instead of dismissing them outright. Accept the risks as valid concerns and develop a risk-mitigation plan to prevent those outcomes from happening. This is not unlike deciding which offramp you'll take before you end up at the end of the highway.
Very much this. The slippery slope is not as much of a falacy as some people believe it is. As in they immidiately dismiss the whole argument because it smells of slippery slope. Instead of adressing what would prevent it from turning into a slippery slope.
This.
@@pewpin1039 I agree with you. There’s a difference between a weak argument and an invalid argument. Slippery slopes may not be the best logical arguments but the concerns generally are still valid and can sometimes justify action to mitigate the concerns.
I agree. HOWEVER... to use your (good) analogy, sometimes we're already on the highway headed for the end. We're trying to get off the highway as soon as possible because we know we're getting closer to the end and it's hard to get off. Sometimes others say "what's wrong with continuing to drive on this highway, we can always pull off at the very last exit." But that doesn't always work. Sometimes you're going too fast and you miss the last exit. Sometimes it's too late before you realize you missed it and now you're screwed.
@@UserNameAnonymous Just as there’s no good reason to completely dismiss the risks of a slippery slope argument, there’s no need to be reckless. Assessing risk-reward trades is part of due diligence.
Is the reason he always swaps outfits meant to be a reference to the Emperor Has No Clothes fable? Since in every episode he’s disproving an argument someone is making (thus showing that the emperor ‘has no clothes’)
Oooo
@SARAH GIBBS and did you get one? And what did they say?
@SARAH GIBBS replying for updates
@Sarah Gibbs haha thank you!! Let me know what they say
Probably not, but that's a fantastic observation
I love how his last sentence is a slippery slope fallacy.
missed the wink though!!
He winked though
which sentence?
The demon of reason ought to meet the demon of reason, eh?
He does this for like every video at the end. Like the one about correlation does not always mean causation. He said something like my popcorn got cold because my ice cream melted (They were in separate bowls).
I love these series with demon of reason!!! Made my dayyy~
I think it's also worth pointing out that what ultimately brought down Cambodia's genocidal government was a war with Vietnam. So while communism initially spread to Vietnam's neighboring countries, it's not like they were all buddy-buddy
That wonderful feisty Little thing called nationalism got in the way.
agree
And Vietnam was also opposed by China and the United States, who both supported the Khmer Rouge in hopes of weakening Vietnam
@@jovan1198 Vietnam shouldn’t help them to power in the first place.
@@saviet4222 Well, what do you mean by that? They stopped supporting them by 1973, before they had come to power. All in all, the US and China supported the faction for much longer, only ending support in 1993
Good on TedEd for actually teaching critical thinking skills with these videos. The world sorely needs them.
I know I do....
You didn't get taught this at school? I had a whole year of logic and argumentation in fifth year of secundarie school.
@@pedrochiapello In American schools, a course in logic or argumentation isn't a requirement.
Yeh most people r sheeps they need the opinions of the majority to form theyre own
Just as long as you agree with their conclusions on a specific critical topic.
The most illogical thing in these videos is the fact that everyone lets the demon talk and just listen.
They live in an universe where Twitter doesn't exist
Okay, but if you were having a political meeting and a demon appeared out of nowhere and snapped his fingers to swap clothes with the speaker at the meeting, would you interrupt him?
@@pageturner2958 Me ? Nope, Those politicians ? With every fibre of their being
@@pageturner2958I’d be running
I may not know the anatomy of the demon of reason, but that back posture certainly doesn't look comfortable.
I really liked the set up, but I had hoped this video would explain the difference between slippery slopes that are true and slippery slopes that are false.
For example, one effect can make another independent effect more likely and it is important to stay wary of how seemingly independent events can reinforce each other.
A lot of the time, such seemingly independent events will be described fallaciously as being a slippery slope argument when it's a description of a systemic failure. This video doesn't do a good job explaining that.
The example used in the video is a good example of this. He assigns each variable as being independent, and a necessarily straight chain (although contradicts that idea later), when in reality, if Vietnam fell and that only directly caused Laos to fall, maybe that would give the two the strength needed to threaten Cambodia into place, which increases the likelihood of other countries falling so on and so forth. Not saying it’s likely, but the slippery slope is only a fallacy when you argue to discredit it, otherwise it’s called risk assessment and mitigation
If an effect makes another event more likely they are no INdependent, they are dependent
@@thefeof6161 That's not what that means. There's a difference between necessary cause and sufficient cause.
video: "can you outsmar-"
me: no next question
As others in the comments section have pointed out, this video mischaracterizes the slippery slope argument with regard to the premise laid out in the opening quote from Alfred Acorn. It’s not the probability of a particular series of events unfolding to a very particular ultimate outcome (unless you’re the Kwisatz Haderach). It refers to the notion that once some moral or ideological thresholds are crossed, further reaches become increasingly indefensible.
So you often hear “slippery slope” used in free speech arguments. For example, if we allow the powers that be punish speech that's deemed offensive, what’s to stop them from preventing any speech just because they don’t like it and who becomes the arbiter of what's considered offensive? From there, could they compel speech that suits their motives? And if so, what are the punishments for infractions? Fines? Imprisonment?
For those who don't want to read my entire reply below (TL;DR), this video is, sadly, of pretty poor quality to most put out in this series.
President Eisenhower's answer, as directly quoted from Public Papers of the Presidents, 1954, p. 382:
"You have, of course, both the specific and the general when you talk about such things.
"First of all, you have the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs.
"Then you have the possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world.
"Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the 'falling domino' principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that
would have the most profound influences.
"Now, with respect to the first one, two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important. There are others, of course, the rubber plantations and so on.
"Then with respect to more people passing under this domination, Asia, after all, has already lost some 450 million of its peoples to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can't afford greater losses.
"But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you begin to talk about areas that not only multiply the disadvantages that you would suffer through loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are talking really about millions and millions and millions of people.
"Finally, the geographical position achieved thereby does many things. It turns the so-called island defensive chain of Japan, Formosa, of the Philippines and to the southward; it moves in to threaten Australia and New Zealand.
"It takes away, in its economic aspects, that region that Japan must have as a trading area or Japan, in turn, will have only one place in the world to go- that is, toward the Communist areas in order to live.
"So, the possible consequences of the loss are just incalculable to the free world."
You'll notice a few things, maybe. If you don't, let me point them out for you.
1. The statement alluded to in the video was not an individual statement, but rather a listing of several considerations when approaching Policy in the region.
2. The entirety of the third consideration, the focal point of the basis of this video, uses language multiple times such as "might", "could", and "possible." However, at timestamp 1:15, and these are your words exact, you claim "Eisenhower claims, that by virtue of what he calls the "falling domino principle", Communist control of Vietnam would be the "beginning of a disintegration" that would be certain to cause "incalculable loss." You use his quote, but you quote him incorrectly. His statement is that the third consideration "might" be of something, an analogy for that thing, followed by "could have" an outcome that "would have" profound influences.
3. While we're on the topic of the "Falling Domino" principle, at timestamp 1:10, you point out President Eisenhower's mention of the "falling domino pollicy with the words, and I quote, "what he calls the "falling domino principle." This doesn't mean he coined the phrase or originated the idea. But the wording of your call out is misleading. Intentional? The point is, the first mentions and uses of the "principle" are generally attributed to President Harry S. Truman in the 1940's, to justify sending support to Greece and Turkey.
4. Finally, as President Eisenhower points out in his last sentence, all the preceding points to his third consideration are "possible consequences" and that the extent of those consequences are incalculable. That is, from point a in the argument to point zed, there is a path. It is a "possible path." President Eisenhower may even have believed it was the probable path. His point was that if, if that path progressed to point zed, the loss would be incalculable.
Of course, let's not forget that there have been many examples through history since then of just such attempts at 'exporting' control and Communism past the borders of the USSR, and in the guise of a freely elected government, Russia in the more current time.
And lastly, even when an argument depends on the possibility of a chain of events you may deem a 'slippery slope' argument, that reliance does not necessarily invalidate that argument. There are many examples of action taken on strings of chance happenings, each dependent on the prior step. What makes these arguments compelling is the consideration of the relationship of risk to impact. You may rightly point out that at each step the odds of a thing happening drop, versus my argument that they may still happen. But if the impact of that event is consequential enough, it must still be valid. The steps, or web of possible steps, to being struck by lightning are there being a storm, one of us being outside, a lightning strike happening, that bolt strikes you or me. That's a horrible framework for the argument that in a storm you and I should remain safely inside. And yet, it's not an invalid argument in relation to both the possible outcome should you or I be struck and the fact that people have been struck.
Of all your videos, this one is the only to not sit well with me. But I must say it sits rather poorly.
.
So basically, in order to explain slippery slope fallacy, TedEd created sophistries and strawmen.
@@konchady yes, and must use a circumstance where the slippery slope did not come to pass; when it has many times before. Indeed, Liberalism actually shows that the Domino Theory is what least somewhat valid, as that is how it spread between 1776/89-1918.
Who else remembers Vaccine Passports being a slippery slope fallacy?
would “the vaccine leading to the 20th booster existing” be a slippery slope fallacy?
“Only 78%…far from an inevitability.”
Uh, yeah. If something was 78% likely to kill me, I’m not taking those chances.
Likelyhood implies lack of agency. One of a handful of tactics employed in order to deter from examination.
For people who don't agree with the logic explained here. The demon doesn't have an issue with talking about possibilities that may or may not happen, or events that don't have a 100% chance of happening. Sure, discuss all possible scenarios, especially the one extreme case you're worried might happen. The issue here is that politicians tend to exaggerate some extreme event as something which is inevitable, simply to suit their own political goals. Misinforming the people, using fear-mongering to justify your wars. Maybe don't lie to your people? And don't exaggerate stuff just to justify your political stance.
The slippery slope argument has bad uses, but I can also be used legitimately with real concern, bad policies and dystopian changes can slowly ruin a society, kind of like boiling ba frog alive slowly
Your math was wrong, you used his bad logic to use math as dominos, in reality, one bad scenario might have multiple 50% chances, meaning at least one of those chances could come true.
Anyway, I hope I got my point across, just because he used the argument wrongly, doesn't mean it's entirely a logical fallacy
@@fissionplane32 that's not the point of the video. People misuse numbers and statistics to justify their own goals, literally mislead the public- that's the point here. Sure the extreme event could be highly possible, but it's wrong and misleading to say it's the ONLY possible outcome. Also, Slippery slope IS a logical fallacy, they literally explained the math in the video.
@@alexbanks4219 yeah ok, I guess the president put out a not-well-thought-through statement, but neither did ted ed, they claimed that we should avoid using slippery slopes in an argument, which pissed me off because of how prevalent slippery slopes are
@@fissionplane32 I mean, I feel it is better to avoid them too, because people have a tendency to exaggerate stuff to suit their opinions and needs. Why not use better techniques than an argument that people tend to misuse?
@@alexbanks4219 78% is still quite a high chance though, and in any case in most real life scenarios there are likely to be a lot fewer than 26 steps!
Just because something's a fallacy, doesn't mean the argument is wrong/bad. Fallacies only indicate logical gaps in argumentation, and should not be used to dismiss arguments. You should do an episode on "the Fallacy Fallacy" for all of the insufferable people in this comment section and around the world.
If a logically unsound argument can be good, anything can be.
@@noobestofdamall False. Choosing one standard by which to evaluate everything is foolish. Argumentation by logic is not the only way to make a good argument. Argument from experience; argument by experimentation, empirical/forensic argument; circumstantial argument; pathos & ethos argumentation; etc.
Even if logical argumentation were the only appropriate standard, a single logical fallacy does not deconstruct an entire argument except for in the very strictest sense. If your argument consists of some 30 or so axioms, premises, and deductions, a single logical gap may not do much to affect the conclusion, provided the other steps are sound.
For instance, the slippery slope in the video assumes that an entire argument is wrong only because the final conclusion does not manifest, but in real life, a slippery slope argument often implies that any progression in that direction is bad and that the further the progress, the worse it is. If someone is concerned about A leading to Z and, instead, A leads to W, it is little consolation in saying, "See? I told you that you were wrong!" No. In that case, they were mostly right -- much more so than the person who claims, "That's just a slippery slope fallacy!"
@@mr.johnson3844 I've never heard it called a "Slippery Slope Fallacy" before which is what made this a bit odd to me. I took philosophy classes in college a decade ago so I'm definitely rusty, but I don't understand why a more simple example was used.
@@Jaigarful this was brought-up in my high school speach class and i mostly took it with a grain of salt. i felt too much emphasis was placed on "bad argument" than considering actual evidence or trends. flawed logic in and of itself.
these videos seem to be targeting major historical incidences and how logical fallacies can ruin/end peoples' lives. this isn't really the best example, though...
the vaccine will lead to the 20th booster
Great logical breakdown of the slippery slope fallacy. However, most of the time people who use it are reacting to fear or at least using fear to manipulate and absolutely refuse to look at or acknowledge logic and reason.
Where we make the mistake is to constantly engage the manipulator and try to change their minds, which is not going to happen, especially when we keep featuring them and giving them a platform and recognition. We should be engaging the rest of people with logic, reason, and education and show them how to combat manipulation of emotions (like this video is doing).
These are great videos. It's easy to dismiss them as overly simple, pedantic, or basic common sense, but you have to remind yourself that people, masses of people, actually fall down these pits and cause events that change the world. I do believe a certain wall in American politics is very related to a slippery slope argument, and look at the following it earned its proponent. The most important thing is to remember that you're probably not immune to the pits yourself, though, and these videos are clear-cut reminders of the idea.
This is a disingenuous misrepresentation of the facts. He didn't use a slippery slope argument. The WWII veteran, hero, and supreme commander of the allied forces said:
“You have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the ‘falling domino’ principle.” Eisenhower expanded on this thought, explaining, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly.” This would lead to disintegration in Southeast Asia, with the “loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following.” Eisenhower suggested that even Japan, which needed Southeast Asia for trade, *would be in danger.*"
And he was right. Those countries did fall. He did not say Japan and Australia and the rest of the world would fall. He said Japan would be in danger.
There is a HUGE difference between what a slippery slope fallacy is and understanding the Geo political environment in combination with military and economical concerns from someone who was not far removed from the last global conflict.
"Babe wake up, a new Demon of Reason video just dropped."
not my comment, somebody else posted it on a different demon video, i just thought it was funny.
just a greeting from Vietnam, btw, 19/August/1945 marked the day of our revolution against French and Japanese
Vietnam are an example of anti-imperialism and resistence to the US regime. You guys are warriors
Around 4th minute you mention steps A-Z leading to something and their probabilities. However, you're entirely omitting the fact that there can be a number of ways for A to lead to Z. If, for example, our A is a cup being thrown from our hand, and Z being the cup's contents spilled, we can have a number of middle steps. The cup can fall on the ground, it can hit a wall, it can smash against the ceiling. Each possibility only has some likelihood, but overall likelihood of Z happening will be equal to their sum.
Furthermore, how often are there 26 steps to the final outcome?
I don't think the slippery slope argument is completely wrong. It will have some applications, and honestly it wasn't wrong to try to contain communism to other countries, but the execution was often wrong (like in South America when CIA supported tyrants to combat communism and serve corporate interests). But Korea without US intervention would be completely horrible, and many other Asian countries were probably deterred from becoming communist out of a general fear of American intervention (e.g. the communist party in the Philippines never really took off). If we had just ignored the affairs of Asia, it would probably be communist by now, maybe even a Chinese USSR, with North Korea like dictators a standard place...
banning assault rifles will lead to banning hammers, so therefore assault rifles should never ever be banned
Slippery slope arguments usually rest on the idea that human beings respect precedents and clear boundary lines, but once those precedents and boundary lines are broken, it is hard to establish new ones. Due to human psychology, they are usually not fallacies.
Well said!
Thinking back to my college years and Philosophy classes, I don't think I've ever heard it presented as a "Slippery Slope Fallacy". Its was always presented as a "Slippery Slope Argument".
I'm going to beg to differ with this video for three reasons:
1. The Domino Theory never claimed that the whole world would fall to communism, rather that it could if nothing was done to prevent it. If I say that throwing a snowball on a mountain may cause an avalanche, I am not saying that it inevitably will. I am saying that there is a chance it may, and that we can reduce that chance by building dams or other safety structures, or by simply not throwing the snowball in the first place. Likewise, Domino Theory was a call to arms with the intent of preventing the spread of communism. Had the world done nothing, domino theory could very well have been fulfilled.
2. Domino Theory does not imply a single line of dominoes falling in a neat A-Z order as the video assumes. Dominoes often can be arranged so that one domino hits two or three others, splitting off into all kinds of different branches and patterns. The video said that "a web" was a better analogy, but there is not necessarily a contradiction between a web and a sprawling, branching set of dominos. The two need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, dominos are a better analogy overall because they imply causation, whereas a web does not. So, really, the Domino theory communicates better how the fall of Vietnam might cause the further spread of communism, which was Eisenhower's correct argument.
3. Domino Theory was based on started communist ideology and goals. Communism was never content with one or two countries. Rather, it required constant expansion in order to survive. The main point of Domino theory is that as communism expands, more people and resources come under its control, thereby making its further expansion easier. Like the Huns in ancient Asia, the further the conquest, the faster it accelerates. This is not a "slippery slope" argument, but rather a statement of the laws of synergy. Therefore, there is no fallacy in Domino Theory, just a warning bell to all nations based on correct interpretations of reality as it then was.
Very underrated comment.
The problem isn’t that such an event is “inevitable”, just that we should treat it as such. There are countless examples of slippery slopes that have happened and especially when each step is catastrophic at some level then it becomes more dire. As the outcome increases in how severe the result would be, the more you have to treat it like it’s a guarantee, even if it’s not. Anything that threatens the well fare of millions should be treated like it’s inevitable even if it’s a small chance. The worse the possible result, the more you need to treat it like it will happen. 50/50 odds that you might run out of milk over the weekend? Who cares. A 0.1% chance millions of people will die? Pour everything you’ve got into it to make sure that we get the number lower.
I don't think the examples you provide are exactly similar to the ones provided on the video. The point of the slippery slope falacy is not whether or not catastrophic predictions should be treated seriously, but rather that *portraying* a potential outcome as catastrophic with a large number of potential factors in the middle is not logical.
The fact that *some* examples of slippery slopes have become true doesn't prove or disprove that other slippery slopes are more likely to come true. That's a hasty generalization. If a single event is probable, no matter how unlikely, we should prepare for it. If a single event is the consequence of a long string of events, we should prepare for the problems at the start of that string of events, not the last one, which is the point that is made in the video.
Except it's all propaganda and charisma. Most of the leaders in charge rarely believe these statements, but make them to increase patriotism among their own constituents. With the shortened time between events and reporting nowadays it's getting more creative.
Totally signifies the legends whom were once portrayed like underachievers
It's astounding to me that America never accounts for the possibility that it might be the actual villain in theese stories!
You don't understand communism if you think America is the enemy
@@GabeMcCarthy182 i completely hate both of them
They have a weird hero complex. Though many countries like to see themselves as heros. It is a demagogic tool. But Western countries are usually a bit more self-critical especially with their history.
Slippery slope is not a fallacy. The idea that it was was only ever a way to gaslight people with capable pattern recognition skills.
damn straight
“the vaccine existing will lead to the 20th booster existing”
do you think this is true?
And we're seeing it today. The moral fabric of our civilization has been slowly corroded by malicious actors and their sheep. It wont stop. Zoo files are next they're already gaining acceptance