The Slippery Slope: Stepping off a skyscraper

The Slippery Slope: Stepping off a skyscraper

Beautiful Travel Pic, Red Beach, Panjn, China, Twitter  

From my website review of Pirie on August 4, 2017. This article has been edited for an entry on academia.edu on August 18, 2022.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The fallacy assumes that a single step in a particular direction, inevitably means that the whole distance will be covered. (189).

But, the truth is, sometimes a single step leads to another and there are cases when it does not. (189).

I agree with Pirie where he reasons:

'There is a limited class of cases in which someone is doomed after a first step...' Stepping off a skyscraper being a good philosophical example. (189).

Based on the author's example: (189).

If we lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age, soon there will be a call in society for the legal drinking age to be lowered to 16 years of age.

This is unlikely as in the 21st Century, the standard age of adulthood is typically 18 years of age. Therefore, it is doubtful there would be societal calls for the legal age of drinking to be below 'universal' adulthood.

The fallacy fails to differentiate between far-reaching actions and limited actions. (190). The author opines that most proposals would lead to disaster if taken too far.

My examples:

If one smokes marijuana, it will lead to cocaine use.

This is true at times, marijuana being documented as a gateway drug, but it is not always the case in every instance. As it is written it is fallacious.

If one smokes marijuana, it may lead to cocaine use.

Reasonable.

(I have no interest in recreational drugs or in the abuse of pharmaceutical drugs.)
---

If one looks at naked women, he/she will become addicted to hardcore pornography.

This can be true, but is not always the case.

Many of us while appreciating female beauty, find hardcore pornography, unsatisfying and visually gross.

From a Christian perspective, the Lord can sanctify a believer to understand that pornography of any type, is a waste of time, as far as meaningful sexual gain. It is also unethical and immoral. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6: 18 that sexual sin is committed against one's own body.

Logically fallacious

Referencing

WALTON, D.N. (1992) Slippery Slope Arguments, Clarendon Press.

'Slippery Slope (also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy)

Description:

When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”'
---

One of my University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, tutors criticized me for not being more assertive with certain arguments and using the term 'some'. As with all the critiques, wanting to pass, I took it very seriously and implemented changes. However, the slippery slope fallacy is another example of where the term 'some' can protect the correctness of premises.

If some people use marijuana, it may lead to some people using heroine.

'Some' type premises should be presented with caution. From my United Kingdom experience, these types of arguments may be labelled 'assertions' by tutors.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, D.N. (1992) Slippery Slope Arguments, Clarendon Press.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Slippery-Slope

Christians and non-Christians

Beautiful Travel Pic, Twitter, China, colourized

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

The Langer philosophy text review, continues.

Some key symbols from the textbook:
≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable

Two complementary classes not only divide the universe between them (universe of discourse, my add), but they are mutually exclusive. (145).

Christians and non-Christians would divide a universe of discourse. (My add).

Christians = A
Non-Christians= -A

This philosophically would encompass the entirety of humanity as a universe of discourse.

Christians = A
Non-Christians= -A

One form is a denial of the other. (145). As consequence, no element in the universe can be true of both forms, and no individual can be of both classes. (145).

Taking this concept to biblical studies and theology:

Christians = A

Non-Christians= -A

Example:

A

Mathew 28: 18-20: New Testament, disciples.

-A

Mathew 28: 18-20: New Testament, non-disciples.

Please see comments section for more examples.

Langer writes that this is a negative statement:

(∃x) : ˜ (x ε A) (145).

x Exists does not equal x is A.

or

x does not equal x is A.

This is in a positive form:

(∃x) : x ε -A (145).

x Exists equals x is not A.

or

x equals x is not A.

Beautiful Travel Pic, Twitter, China

What is reasonable?

Vancouver: Today

What is reasonable?

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

I viewed Tucker Carlson Tonight, last night and posted on his Twitter page a reply to his request to know what is reasonable (thought).

@TuckerCarlson Blackburn: Paraphrase-To accept something as rational is to accept it as making sense, as appropriate, aiming at truth. (319)

Replying to @RNMPhD @TuckerCarlson The prof. you debated needs to use texts. (Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)

Replying to @RNMPhD @TuckerCarlson Blackburn: Reasoning is any process drawing a conclusion from premises. Under reason Blackburn states see rationality. (Being reasonable)
---

On Twitter I am limited to 140 character tweets. So, obviously, an even more limited presentation than on Blogger.

The professor, Mr. Carlson was debating stated (paraphrased) that reasonable thought and arguments were what the average person would use and state. I suppose she meant what is considered reasonable by the average person. Within various worldviews the average person can believe things not rational/reasonable. A society, in general can accept premises and arguments not rational/reasonable. This criteria lacks objectivity.

To continue with Blackburn's definition: Rationality from 319/Reason 320:

To accept something as making sense, appropriate, required, in accordance with some acknowledged goal, as in the truth, or the good. (319).

I would define reason and rationality as:

Rationality and reason are the use of true premises and true conclusions.

This is non-exhaustive but philosophically acceptable.

Prove to me, I am not the most handsome man ever to exist!

Majorca, Spain, Facebook (Would be nice today).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Prove to me, I am not the most handsome man ever to exist!

April 18

The argumentation ad ignorantiam is committed when the lack of knowledge is presented to infer that the opposite is true. (126).

Pirie opines that shifting the burden of proof is a specialized form of argumentation ad ignorantiam, asserting a premise without justification. (187). The audience must disprove of the premise for it to be rejected. (187).

'Give me a good reason this is not true'.

This is an example based on what was presented by the author. But, it is the assertion, the premise that needs to be justified in an argument, not the resistance to it, or the arguments against it. (187). It is assumed that something is acceptable unless proven otherwise. (187).

Prove to me I not the most handsome man ever to exist!

(Yes, this is fallacious. My photos are a clue this is a questionable proposition. I am somewhere between pretty boy and tank on the looks scale)

Pirie explains this fallacy fuels belief in UFOs, monsters, demons, etcetera. (188).

On the point of demons, I differ:

I acknowledge that demonic belief can be presented with fallacious premises.

But a reasonable theological belief in Satan and demons is based in scriptural, documented, history, not in premises of lack of knowledge. I do not focus on 'prove to me, it is not true' premises in regard to the supernatural. Demonic belief is primarily based on scripture, even for those of us that reason we have seen and heard demonic activity in humanity.
---

FOF

I listen to Focus on the Family (FOF), 'Boundless' occasionally. Here are reasoned premises based on listening. The Focus on the Family American (Canadian), philosophy of dating.

Non-exhaustive and not in every case.

He reads his Bible.
He leads at church.
He has Christian maturity.
He has good employment.
He is attractive.
He is relatable.
He is within five years of age.

Therefore, he is a potential date.

He reads his Bible.
He leads at church.
He has Christian maturity.
He has good employment.
He is attractive.
He is relatable.
He is ten years plus older.

Therefore, he is a potential acquaintance.

He has secular views.
He attends church.
He has Christian background.
He has good employment.
He is attractive.
He is relatable.
He is within five years of age.

Therefore, he is a potential date.

My suggested

He reads his Bible.
He leads at church.
He has Christian maturity.
He has good employment.
He is attractive.
He is relatable.
He is youthful.

Therefore, he is a potential date.

If my evaluation of FOF views are reasonably correct, a reason why many young women reject attractive older men is because age difference is more important than Christian walk. The generally greater physical attraction of younger men and social rules are more important than spiritual maturity when comparing younger men to older men.

This article and a related one were used for an entry on academia.edu, 2024/02/10.