• LUD1T3@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    @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.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      because it doesn’t actually PROVE its conclusion

      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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • LUD1T3@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              “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.

              • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • LUD1T3@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “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.”

                  ^^^
                  Arguing with people like this is pointless. And endless.

                  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Sometimes. It’s a spectrum; what people take seriously depends on their social environment, so you can get people who have absorbed arguments like that and maybe aren’t very rational but still are capable of listening and have worthwhile things to express.

            • LUD1T3@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              “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.