A slippery slope fallacy is when someone argues that due to one action, negative consequences will inevitably occur because of a chain reaction of events that were triggered by the first action. With this fallacy, the argument is not based on specific evidence to support the assertion and tends to exaggerate the outcome (always dire).
It’s often an “if-then” scenario that’s gone haywire.
Imagine a debate about a controversial topic, say, the use of a particular technology. Someone might argue: "If we allow this technology today, it will lead to widespread misuse, and eventually, the downfall of society as we know it!" Sound familiar? That's the Slippery Slope Fallacy in action.
Why is it considered a problem?
The most glaring issue with this fallacy is the absence of substantial evidence to support the claim. It relies on fear, speculation, or conjecture rather than facts and data.
Slippery slope arguments often jump to extreme and far-fetched conclusions. They assume that a small step in one direction will inevitably lead to a disastrous outcome without considering the complexities of reality.
This fallacy can stifle healthy debate and compromise by painting any action as a slippery slope to disaster. It discourages nuanced discussions and problem-solving.
Psychology Today presents a partial counter-argument saying, if the “propositions that make up the SSA [Slippery Slope Argument] are emotionally loaded (e.g., fear-evoking), then it’s more likely to be fallacious. If it is unbiased, void of emotion, and makes efforts to assess plausibility, then there’s a good chance that it’s a reasonable conjecture.”
At first blush, the Slippery Slope Fallacy sounds a bit like extrapolation. But extrapolation is more data-driven and logic based. Extrapolation would say that the patterns or trends observed will continue and therefore an educated guess can be made given the current data. Slippery slope arguments, on the other hand, tend to amplify the possible outcomes, suggesting that the observed trend (without supporting data) will rapidly intensify and lead to chaos. Both approaches, however, are fallible because mitigating factors may change the course and therefore the outcome.
Digital surveillance and its effect on privacy was once a “Slippery Slope” area of discussion that has become legitimate. Critics argued that government digital surveillance could lead to a slippery slope of the erosion of our privacy. And given the many revelations about extensive government surveillance programs, perhaps those once “slippery” arguments have been given some real credence.
Is it possible that today’s Slippery Slopes, including gun restrictions leading to firearm bans, taxation leading to socialism in our country, and restriction of hate speech leading to the end of freedom of speech, could become tomorrow’s realities? Does a lack of current empirical data to study and extrapolate make those predictions irrelevant?
Are Slippery Slope Arguments simply one of the first steps of problem identification? Unsubstantiated, but possible. A snowball, metaphorically, might be rolling down that slippery slope after all.
Sources:
Comments