The slippery slope is a fallacy only because there’s no proof things will go one way or the other. You can use slippery slope to say ridiculous things. E.g “if we let gays marry, it’ll be pedos next” is a good example of the fallacy whereas “if we let private corporations spy on us for a good reason, they’ll expand their powers to extract even more profit” is not, but either way, you need to know the context (which is that corporations serve to extract maximum possible wealth and have no morals).
The problem is that slippery slopes are often real, and citing it as a fallacy is normally done to dismiss the idea that it could be real, without making an argument. As you say, whether one thing will lead to another depends on circumstances. But a fallacy is supposed to be an argument that is wrong because of faulty logic. A claim that one thing will lead to another can be wrong, but I would say that it’s almost always wrong because the underlying premise is wrong, not because there is a claim of an existence of a slippery slope. For example the “gay marriage -> child abuse” rhetoric is coming from religious conservatives who likely believe that strict adherence to their religious rules and practice is the main thing keeping society from “degeneracy” and general bad behavior. Given the premise, the conclusion isn’t illogical, the problem is that the premise is wrong. Instead of calling it a fallacy, it would be a better argument to have the premise clarified, and make an argument against its merits.
In the case of the OP situation, I would say that when a company is actively using tools to examine and control the contents of a user’s device, that makes it more plausible for demands that they expand what they do this for will be followed. I’m sure plenty of people would try to dismiss that as a fallacy, but really it’s a claim about how things work.
@chicken@boonhet It’s a difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t actually PROVE its conclusion. That doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong, just that the argument doesn’t prove it (though it may insinuate many possible conclusions). Other corroborating evidence can lend itself to a reasonable suspicion, or even a strong inductive argument, but it falls short of logical certainty.
Hardly any casual arguments do though. Almost every argument you see on the internet is a stated claim only, with the reasoning only implied. You don’t see those being called fallacies.
It can be a technical term, but words are defined by their use. If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid. A failure to provide reasoning beyond implied reasoning isn’t something most people see as a problem at all.
I think that if someone was arguing in good faith, instead of citing “slippery slope”, they would instead ask why you believe one thing will lead to another.
“If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to…”
I don’t disagree with this at all. That’s why I avoid arguing with people on the internet.
Well alright, you could consider them to be defined otherwise, but pragmatically you have to think about them that way if you want to effectively communicate with people, since they meant what they meant and you are able to know what they meant so pretending you thought they meant something different will just hold things up. If you don’t make a habit of arguing with people on the internet I guess that might be less of a concern.
The slippery slope is a fallacy only because there’s no proof things will go one way or the other. You can use slippery slope to say ridiculous things. E.g “if we let gays marry, it’ll be pedos next” is a good example of the fallacy whereas “if we let private corporations spy on us for a good reason, they’ll expand their powers to extract even more profit” is not, but either way, you need to know the context (which is that corporations serve to extract maximum possible wealth and have no morals).
The problem is that slippery slopes are often real, and citing it as a fallacy is normally done to dismiss the idea that it could be real, without making an argument. As you say, whether one thing will lead to another depends on circumstances. But a fallacy is supposed to be an argument that is wrong because of faulty logic. A claim that one thing will lead to another can be wrong, but I would say that it’s almost always wrong because the underlying premise is wrong, not because there is a claim of an existence of a slippery slope. For example the “gay marriage -> child abuse” rhetoric is coming from religious conservatives who likely believe that strict adherence to their religious rules and practice is the main thing keeping society from “degeneracy” and general bad behavior. Given the premise, the conclusion isn’t illogical, the problem is that the premise is wrong. Instead of calling it a fallacy, it would be a better argument to have the premise clarified, and make an argument against its merits.
In the case of the OP situation, I would say that when a company is actively using tools to examine and control the contents of a user’s device, that makes it more plausible for demands that they expand what they do this for will be followed. I’m sure plenty of people would try to dismiss that as a fallacy, but really it’s a claim about how things work.
@chicken @boonhet It’s a difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy because it doesn’t actually PROVE its conclusion. That doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong, just that the argument doesn’t prove it (though it may insinuate many possible conclusions). Other corroborating evidence can lend itself to a reasonable suspicion, or even a strong inductive argument, but it falls short of logical certainty.
Hardly any casual arguments do though. Almost every argument you see on the internet is a stated claim only, with the reasoning only implied. You don’t see those being called fallacies.
@chicken There is very little actual logic on the internet, absent its coding.
“Fallacy” is a technical term, not simply a derogatory one.
It can be a technical term, but words are defined by their use. If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid. A failure to provide reasoning beyond implied reasoning isn’t something most people see as a problem at all.
I think that if someone was arguing in good faith, instead of citing “slippery slope”, they would instead ask why you believe one thing will lead to another.
“If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to…”
I don’t disagree with this at all. That’s why I avoid arguing with people on the internet.
“words are defined by their use.”
This, however, is debatable and highly contested by many in semantics. Although it does represent the most contemporary view.
Well alright, you could consider them to be defined otherwise, but pragmatically you have to think about them that way if you want to effectively communicate with people, since they meant what they meant and you are able to know what they meant so pretending you thought they meant something different will just hold things up. If you don’t make a habit of arguing with people on the internet I guess that might be less of a concern.
The problem with your argument is that slippery slopes are often not real.
I explicitly acknowledge this. You have not contradicted my argument.