On 11/11/03 5:13 PM, "Alex Rosen" <arosen(a)novell.com> wrote:
That's an
inductive argument, not a slippery slope argument.
All inductive arguments are fallacies, in the rigorous sense. Only
deductive arguments are rigorously valid.
Although they are fallacies, that does not mean that inductive arguments
should be ignored. They simply need to be recognized as such
--that there is necessarily an element of uncertainty about the conclusion.
Then you're using the word "fallacy" in a different way than normal
humans use it.
So now I'm not normal? Thanks. What is the "normal" definition of fallacy?
That might be a more correct way of using it, I
don't
know, but just be aware that people will take it differently than you
mean it. Calling something a fallacy sounds like you're saying that it's
incorrect and should be completely discounted.
It *is* incorrect and it should be avoided whenever possible. Some fallacies
are correctable or at least improvable; others are not.
I don't think anybody believes that their
"slippery slope" argument is
conclusive proof, we all know it's just one consideration in the
debate.
I don't presume to know what everyone else is thinking. Since all we have to
communicate with is our words, it behooves us to be rigorous in our
language.
Again, a slippery slope argument and an inductive argument are not
equivalent. There's a reason the words are different.