= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on Logical fallacy poster - 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 (29)
It's not obvious to me that Bayesian reasoning implies that slippery slopes always happen. In short, I don't understand your assertion.
Too strong; one does not need for them to always happen.
In response to the question you meant to ask, Yvain said it well
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.
Right. So
is a poor slippery slope, whereas
is not.
One does if one presents the reasoning as an unqualified logical deduction. That is the realm where most of these 'logical fallacies' apply.
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.