![]() ![]() That is to say, Glaucon’s opinion of Rebecca as a person has no bearing on whether she’s a good singer or not–regardless of what day of the week it is. ![]() In short, Socrates’ premises are not relevant to the conclusion he’s trying to support, that Rebecca Black is a great singer. Instead of replying to Glaucon’s argument by addressing his premises or reasoning, Socrates brings up an issue irrelevant to the argument. Glaucon’s argument is that Rebecca Black’s voice isn’t very good, and he provides reasons. Socrates: Why do you hate her? OMG, you’re so mean! If it weren’t or if she were singing live you’d hear that she’s out of tune. Glaucon: Whatev, her voice is auto-tuned. Her voice is a combination of Jesus and Fergie. Socrates: Rebecca Black is such a great singer. Lets look at an example from Plato’s Republic: Its premises are irrelevant to the conclusion it seeks to negate/oppose. Basically, a red herring is an objection to a position that doesn’t address the actual argument. Both fallacies can be either intentional or unintentional.Ī red herring is “an attempt to shift debate away from the issue that is the topic of an argument” (Groarke & Tindale p. They are the red herring and the straw man. There are many different types of fallacies but the two that we will look at here have to do with how premises relate to the context of an argument. Fallacies are intentional or unintentional (common) mistakes in argument. Now we’re going to look at the dark side of arguments: fallacies. The concept of validity can be further sub-divided into two components: (i) premise relevance and (ii) premise sufficiency. In the last post we looked at the properties of a strong argument: (a) premise acceptability and (b) logical force (i.e., validity). Philosophami on Covid-19 vaccine refusal and o… ![]() QaFarius Abramowitz on Are Vaccine Mandates similar t…ĭolphinwrite on Covid-19 vaccine refusal and o… Covid-19 vaccine refusal and organ transplant eligibility.The Death of Colin Powell and Covid-19 Vaccines.The Pfizer whistleblower: What Does it mean?.Are Vaccine Mandates similar to nazi medical experiments?.Food, Caring, and Cancer: Understanding Caregiver Distress about Feeding.I suppose I will have to use some OTHER arguments to make my case. Well I still think we should have some gun safety measures, but I guess it really isn’t a slippery slope fallacy. We also have direct evidence of current political leaders who have stated support for confiscation. ![]() 2A: It isn’t bologna, since we have precedent of gun control measures leading to weapon confiscations both in the US and in other countries. It is an actual slippery slope, or a Boiling of the Frog. GC: But that’s a slippery slope argument! No one wants to take your guns. 2A: Because I know that this will lead to you wanting to take my guns. GC: Why won’t you compromise on the current gun control measure. We’ll call them Pro Gun-Control and Pro Second Amendment, or GC and 2A respectively. That being said, here goes: Two opposing people are having a debate. If you want to argue about it, there are several subreddits where that would be appropriate. It’s an example, and I am only using it for illustrative purposes. I don’t care what side of my example you are on. Sure, the steps along the way don’t necessarily lead to a boiled frog, but if they continue that direction (and you have proof that it’s happened before, or has happened the same way somewhere else) eventually the frog boils.īefore I list an example, I only want to state that I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE. For this reason, I like to say that the counterpoint to the slippery slope fallacy is Boiling the Frog - gradual change leading to an eventual bad end. It's not about judging a thing on its origins, more about judging based on its past meaning or status.Īnother important thing about the slippery slope fallacy is that it isn’t a fallacy when there is precedent for the steps already have taken place somewhere else. I know OP didn't create this, but just to make sureĮDIT: came back to this post and saw the genetic fallacy. It's supposed to be 'appealing to popular viewpoint'. (Also if the slippery slope seems logically inconsistent, but has been shown to occur nonetheless in related areas or with related ideas, it may not be a fallacy either).Īlso the ad-populum one is simply incorrect. There's an arguable link, which could be pointed out, whether you agree with the statement or not. It's a vague fallacy and many people tend to think claiming a link between a certain chain of events must be an example of this fallacy.įor example, it's not specifically a fallacy to state that 'allowing self-driving cars could lead to the eventual removal of human-guided cars from the roads'. It's important to note that the 'slippery slope' fallacy is only a 'fallacy' if the steps claimed in moving down the 'slope' do not relate logically, or cannot be argued to relate logically. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |