Reasoning in a Chain and the Slippery Slope
In Chapter 6, I really took interest in Epstein's concept of reasoning in a chain and the slippery slope. The process of setting up these concepts come from setting up an event where because a person does one thing, another person will do something, which will lead the former person to do something else. In other words, it becomes if A, then B; if A then C; so if A, then C. A chain or reasoning is essentially a chain of conditionals according to the text. However, because the way the conclusion is brought, and the way it reads, sounds silly and dubious, it can lead to an overall bad, yet valid argument. The antecedent starts off reasonable, but then comes the slippery slope of going from one conditional to the other that leads to the conclusion, and therefore, the concept of if A, then C. To prevent this slippery slope, you have to be aware, recognize, and point out one or some of the conditionals from the argument's implausibility.
Example:
If I don't get started on my reading now, then I won't have time to go to dinner.
If I don't go to dinner, I won't get to eat.
So if I don't get started on my reading, I can't eat.
The antecedent starts out well and strong, but as the conditionals are laid out one after the other, the argument gets weaker, and because of that, the consequent becomes something of a dubious and implausible nature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You explained the slippery slope concept well. It was easy to follow and understand. It seems that the concept of a slippery slope in a chain of reasoning is similar to a math equation. If there is no work shown leading up to the answer, the answer might not make sense to someone else and therefore could be false since there is no proof. Your example showed that you knew how to explain the idea of the slippery slope. Not reading on time can not directly lead to you being not able to eat. So there has to be a series of events leading up to the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI think this was a great way to summarize reasoning in a chain and the slippery slope. People encounter these types of arguments on a regular basis whether it is from their kids, work, or other source. If a person believes in one thing they will in many cases use implausible conditions without even realizing it. By using conditionals like these the person makes their consequent very unlikely. It is usually not until someone else points out these implausibilities to the person, that they actually realize how weak their argument actually is. I think that many of these types of arguments could be prevented if a person would stop to plan and think out their argument before just saying the first things that come to their minds.
ReplyDelete