= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw comments on Fallacies as weak Bayesian evidence - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (41)
Who the hell things that slippery slopes are a fallacy? You got it backwards - slippery slopes are a basic fact of life, pretending they don't exist is a fallacy.
Anyone who finds "the slippery slope fallacy" a useful soldier in their argument.
I find that soldier far less effective and versatile than actual fallacious slippery slopes arguments! Even acausal slippery slopes!
Careful! The slope can slip both ways!
A good rule of thumb for determining which way the slope is slipping, is to see which side is arguing for a change from the status quo.
My undergraduate philosophy (Critical Thinking) professors and the accompanying textbooks for a start.
The are wrong, of course. At least to the extent that they try to generalize the fallacy. Slippery slope arguments are fallacious only to the extent that they draw conclusions beyond that specified by a correct Bayesian update on available evidence.
Unfortunately, explaining this to people who have basic training in logic but limited exposure to rational thinking philosophy is rather difficult.
The "slippery slope fallacy fallacy" (i.e. the fallacy of claiming that slippery slope is a fallacy) is mostly confusion of short-term tactical goals with long-term strategic goals, and pretending that just because a certain group only focuses on its short-term tactical goals at the moment, that they won't continue further towards their long-term strategic goals once their short-term goals are achieved.
There are multiple independent mechanisms how tactical goals (which you might find unproblematic, or usually at least less problematic and not worth bothering with the effort of opposing them actively) will help them pursue their strategic goals (which can often be horrible, but are much easier achieved step by step than at once), but the mechanism is pretty much irrelevant (there was this paper about this in legal context, I'm sure you've read it, I don't think focusing on mechanism makes much sense) - the pattern is just too ubiquitous and works the same way regardless of mechanism of the particular case.