Larks comments on Logical fallacy poster - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Utopiah 20 April 2012 02:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (29)
Tags: poster logical fallacies

Comments (29)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Larks 20 April 2012 03:02:31PM *  4 points [-]

Slippery slope

You made out like if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and Bonobo monkeys.

It's a nice graphic, but it makes the same mistakes as all the other lists written by those who believe in mere classical rationality.

Comment author: TimS 20 April 2012 03:11:35PM 2 points [-]

It's not obvious to me that Bayesian reasoning implies that slippery slopes always happen. In short, I don't understand your assertion.

Comment author: Larks 20 April 2012 03:42:57PM 5 points [-]

Too strong; one does not need for them to always happen.

In response to the question you meant to ask, Yvain said it well

Comment author: TimS 20 April 2012 03:45:48PM *  1 point [-]

Yvain said there are slippery slopes and identified Schelling points as a natural stopping point of them. Nonetheless, I think we should be suspicious of the slippery-slop argument because it can easily be a fully general counter argument unless it resorts to specific evidence in support.

Edit: My question is more directed at the divide you asserted between "classical rationality" and whatever alternative you think is better.

Comment author: Larks 22 April 2012 10:17:20AM 1 point [-]

it can easily be a fully general counter argument unless it resorts to specific evidence in support.

Right. So

  • If we eat ice-cream on tuesdays now, soon the earth will be attacked by killer neopods!

is a poor slippery slope, whereas

  • If we eat ice-cream on tuesdays now, we'll soon eat it every day

is not.

Comment author: wedrifid 21 April 2012 11:33:08PM *  1 point [-]

Too strong; one does not need for them to always happen.

One does if one presents the reasoning as an unqualified logical deduction. That is the realm where most of these 'logical fallacies' apply.

Comment author: Larks 22 April 2012 10:12:59AM 0 points [-]

But that's an unreasonable standard to hold people to. If the argument can be made sound by adding a load of "will probably tend to..." operators, you should do so, not nitpick.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit