Talk:Slippery slope

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2003–2013)

Article is still arguing with itself[edit]

Resolved

The first citation is from an old message board post, which to the best of my knowledge is not considered a high quality source. It's not necessarily bad information, but I think this might explain why the article is incoherent and sparked arguments a few years ago.

"Slippery slope" is variously defined as a logical fallacy and simply a type of argument. This is reflected in the article's sources, which equivocates on the term, but is not explicitly stated in the article text. Instead, we get the claim that SSA is a fallacious argument, followed by a claim that this fallacious argument has varying degrees of strength, then another claim essentially admitting that not all SSAs are fallacious. This should be resolved by clearly differentiating between the two senses of the term, IF that is the angle the article should take. That's the question I'm posing here.

Another possibility would be to reserve this article for discussion of the fallacy, only mentioning the other uses of the term for the purpose of disambiguation.

Keep in mind that the audience isn't necessarily college-educated and may not be familiar with logical fallacies beyond having heard the term "ad hominem" once or twice. 2603:7081:1603:A300:2CC4:A198:82DB:C8BF (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this resolved, since two editors have overhauled the lead considerably since the anon's concerns were posted above. If there's still an issue, please open a new thread about it with specifics. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in law[edit]

We should cover this more and better, with reliable law sources. The primary usage of slippery slope to refer to arguments or concerns that are not innately fallacious is in law, where it is observed (for example) that eroding the protections of a right leads to further erosion of that and other rights. This sense of slippery slope is deeply embedded in US constitutional law, and the term may well have originated there. There could be some additional coverage of that in this article, and it would satisfy (at least to some extent) requests in an old thread to provide "examples" of when slippery slope is not a fallacy. (I warned of WP:NOR and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE in that thread, though: we are not in a position to claim that particular events qualify as slippery slopes that came true. But that is not the same thing as observing usage and application of the phrase in particular fields like law where the meaning is not "slippery slope fallacy" but "slippery slope argument/principle".) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in general, some changes in life (including changes in point of view) are really the starting point for large-scale changes in the worldview in the future or for drastic changes in the way of action, in which case who is responsible for these unwanted changes? or is it a matter of metaphysics and causation? Derek Di My Mind (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]