Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. [1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument ...
But it can also make sense of arguments independent of an audience, unlike the dialogical approach. [9] This perspective is well suited for explaining why some slippery slope arguments constitute fallacies but others not. Slippery slope arguments argue against a certain proposal based on the fact that this proposal would bring with it a causal ...
Slippery slope arguments may be defeated by asking critical questions or giving counterarguments. [32] There are several reasons for a slippery slope to be fallacious: for example, the argument is going too far into the future, it is a too complex argument whose structure is hard to identify, or the argument makes emotional appeals. [33]
The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute. [19] Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so phenomenal or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency. [20]
The description of the fallacy in this form is attributed to British philosopher Antony Flew, who wrote, in his 1966 book God & Philosophy, . In this ungracious move a brash generalization, such as No Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, when faced with falsifying facts, is transformed while you wait into an impotent tautology: if ostensible Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, then this is ...
An example of this is the slippery-slope argument, which encourages others to avoid a specified act on the grounds that it may ultimately lead to undesirable consequences. [ 32 ] Often "negative" consequentialist theories assert that reducing suffering is more important than increasing pleasure.
In philosophical logic, the masked-man fallacy (also known as the intensional fallacy or epistemic fallacy) [1] is committed when one makes an illicit use of Leibniz's law in an argument. Leibniz's law states that if A and B are the same object, then A and B are indiscernible (that is, they have all the same properties).
In law, an argument from inconvenience or argumentum ab inconvenienti, is a valid type of appeal to consequences. Such an argument would seek to show that a proposed action would have unreasonably inconvenient consequences, as for example a law that would require a person wishing to lend money against a security to first ascertain the borrower ...