Slippery Slope - Critical Thinking Fallacies | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY

In this Wireless Philosophy video, Joseph Wu (University of Cambridge) introduces you to the slippery slope argument. This argument is that when one event occurs, other related events will follow, and this slippery slope will eventually lead to undesirable consequences. Wu walks us through this rhetorical strategy and shows us how to avoid committing a fallacy.

More on Joseph Wu:

----

Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:

Twitter:

Facebook:

Instagram:
@wiphiofficial

----

Help us caption & translate this video!

[gezzapk]

That gum example is true though. Once someone sees you have gum, you are screwed!

[volatile]

You NEVER show your gum in school. Ever.

[obvious_humor]

With regards to the speed limit argument: 1mph is insignificant compared to the INITIAL limit. The premise that 1mph is insignificant is equivocating between "1mph over the limit" vs. "1mph over what is acceptable".

[HalcyonVoid]

"If one, then why not all". Because I want some for myself for later too. Get your own gum.

[kakerake]

What's really going through the guy's head.

If I give Dan gum then others will see and ask
If I refuse to give them gum then they may become upset and refuse to give me things or offer me favors when I inevitably ask.
I do not want risk offending x number of people for the sake of Dan.

[mgd]

My teacher told me to give my gum out to the class. I told her, "as soon as she collects my money from them". She called my pops, he said "good job".
Screw anyone that brings slopes, slippery or otherwise.
If they don't share apples,
I don't share gum. Problem solved.

[CodyGall]

Your the ones who always tell me not to overthink things.

[stalelemonproduction]

your argument with the police officer and speeds has flawed logic. in order for it to work, you have to restate the posted limit at the fastest car to get pulled over. under this logic police cannot pull people over for speeding. However, the limit is fixed, and the speed is cumulative. so, if the limit is 65, someone can make the argument that going 66 is no problem because it's one over. However the next person CANNOT say that 67 is only one over because there's a limit fixed at 65.

[KaiserSoze]

With regard to the speed argument, there are two major issues...

1) The "how likely are the following steps to happen?" argument you made earlier unravels this whole reasoning unless you assume that all the drivers on this road know each other and share details of every traffic stop they encounter.

2) All the police officer need do is appeal to the posted speed limit, rather than the previous drivers, as a case for why the difference is significant. For example, say he decides that 10mph over the limit is his "breaking point." When the person going 75 says "But it's only one mph more than the other guy, and you agreed 1 mph difference isn't significant" he could simply reply "Yes, but the speed limit is 65, not 69 and it's relation to the posted speed limit - not to another driver - that matters."

There is some merit to the large sodas argument at the end - though the suggested conclusions are unlikely, it does set a meaningful precident that could be used to take further steps down said slope... but the speed one is a pretty poor example.

[inthso]

If I watch one inconsequential video, I'll just keep doing it and waste my day.

[doom]

A lot of the examples and logic used in this video are specious.

[christiculous]

The argument I would make for the first example with the gum is that ultimately it is his decision to share or not to share. This slippery slope would be a fallacy because the person controls the outcome. I think that if the argument was that if he pulls the gum out then the other kids would steal it then the example would make more sense.

I don’t think the second example should be considered a fallacy when you add more contextual information. Because speed limits are set according to the needs of the road. So an officer could tell someone going over the speed limit that they are endangering other people, even if someone going 1 mph or less may not be. That’s why officers’ discretion is important.

For the last example I would say that limiting sugary drinks is already in the middle of the slope. The government makes new regulations every day whether they are considered practical or impractical. If I was making the argument that limiting sugary drinks is a slippery slope I would have to put it back on the other person to explain why it would stop with this while it didn’t stop with anything else.

[brgikhs]

The slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a reality

[Pipiopy]

I never slippery slope, but when I do, I do it on snow

[KedViper]

So a slippery slope argument is not always fallacious? That's good to know and the reason I even looked up this video as I thought there were cases where it was logical. For example: A game company charges $60 for a game and next year charges $70 for a game. If we buy the game priced at $70, the company will continue to charge $70 or even charge more next year given that we've seen the trend and know companies are liable to try to increase their profits every year.

[lukeprofits]

When can a slippery slope be valid? I've definitely heard some bad ones before, but sometimes you hear good ones too and people just dismiss them saying that they are slippery slope fallacies (even when they eventually turn out to be correct).

[IgnatRemizov]

Here's a fun one: If we build an AI to make beautiful holiday greeting cards, eventually it will optimize so much that it will convert the entire world's resources into holiday greeting cards, humans and all life included.

[kumatmebrah]

In real life, the slippery slope is all too true and always seems to happen.

[metoonunyabidness]

This whole episode ignores first principles
In the case of the student with gum, the principal behind the decision to give gum to one must be determined.
Was it because they were friends? Then it wouldn't apply to all
Was it because its "fair"? Then it would apply to all

In the case of government restrictions.
Law is based on uniformity, the principal behind the decision to restrict large soda must be uniform.
If its an arbitrary, and/or ambiguous reason like "public health" then the precedent has been set, and anything that can fall under the umbrella of "public health" is subject to government restriction

In the former case, it is easy to see it as a simple overreaction unless we look a little deeper into first principals
In an individualist culture, the decision belongs to the property owner, and can be made principled or arbitrary,
However in a collectivist culture, the decision will belong to the will of the majority, or its figurehead
This absolutely applies to our school systems with the rise of "zero tolerance policies" "diversity, equity and inclusivity" policies etc.

[mashadarii]

Car example is much better than the gum one. The gum argument isn't in every situation a bad or fallacious argument.

The car one is because why? They changed the point of reference from the 65 to 66 to 67. That is the heart of the fallacy.

This fallacy doesn't exist in the same form in the gum argument.