and you can pull the web in such a way that some of the strings gets shorter and the others get longer, which is what a slippery slope is, it makes certain events more probable.
I need more data about his power, I want to assume he would teleport the entire world’s clothes onto his body and be wrapped in a ton of clothes because it sounds funny but that would be an apple and oranges fallacy
@@calebmurray4438 He can teleport himself and other objects. He teleported the t.v. There's no reason he couldn't teleport someone's clothes to a location other than his own body. Tho, it'd be funny
@@hippopotamus_nr2587 probability of independent events is multiplied. For example, event A has a probability of 99%, while event B has a probability of 50%. In order to calculate the percentage that both events will happen, you multiply them. 0.99 times 0.5 is 0.495. So a 49.5% probability that both events will happen. There are more complicated things, like the order in which they happen and if they are dependent or not. But that’s the basic math principle they used in this video…
A few extra insights on slippery slopes: Most slippery slope arguments assume no intervention - no risk mitigation. This is like assuming once you get on a highway, you can't get off the highway until you reach the very end. That point brings up a good way to address slippery slope arguments instead of dismissing them outright. Accept the risks as valid concerns and develop a risk-mitigation plan to prevent those outcomes from happening. This is not unlike deciding which offramp you'll take before you end up at the end of the highway.
Very much this. The slippery slope is not as much of a falacy as some people believe it is. As in they immidiately dismiss the whole argument because it smells of slippery slope. Instead of adressing what would prevent it from turning into a slippery slope.
@@pewpin1039 I agree with you. There’s a difference between a weak argument and an invalid argument. Slippery slopes may not be the best logical arguments but the concerns generally are still valid and can sometimes justify action to mitigate the concerns.
I agree. HOWEVER... to use your (good) analogy, sometimes we're already on the highway headed for the end. We're trying to get off the highway as soon as possible because we know we're getting closer to the end and it's hard to get off. Sometimes others say "what's wrong with continuing to drive on this highway, we can always pull off at the very last exit." But that doesn't always work. Sometimes you're going too fast and you miss the last exit. Sometimes it's too late before you realize you missed it and now you're screwed.
@@UserNameAnonymous Just as there’s no good reason to completely dismiss the risks of a slippery slope argument, there’s no need to be reckless. Assessing risk-reward trades is part of due diligence.
so, basically, in order to avoid falling for the fallacy, instead of saying "A *will* result in B", one just needs to say "A *can* result in B", since the problem is the certainty of the catastrophic outcome the subject is supposedly trying to avoid
Pretty much. The issue of the slippery slope fallacy is that it's basically an assumption that every piece that involves event 'A' to end up as result 'Z' will fall PERFECTLY into place, which is another way of saying that because of event 'A', they assume result 'Z' is 100% inevitable
Yeah, and it should be immediately apparent how much of a weaker claim it is (though more accurate), as there are many other outcomes that are equally likely.
Grossly oversimplified, and I'm pretty sure the video never meant to say that. It says more of how unlikely it is that B will happen, or that B's almost impossible occurence has anything to do with A. "Can" could still be taken to mean the sequence of events is more probable than DoR was trying to explain.
Still, it is hard to predict how the public will react to something or the exact chance of something occurring. Saying can is still more accurate than saying will. For example, you know that a coin or die will have a certain chance of one happening. A coin has 50-50 chance for heads or tails. A die has a 1 in 6 chance for any side. But say you have an irregular die with an unknown number of faces. Some sides have a higher or lower chance of happening. You have to find out how likely a specific side will face up. A common way is too roll a certain number of times and record the number of times that side faces up. This gives a decent percentage to guess with, but it can't be for sure 100% accurate since you could be lucky a few rolls or not. If you could use math, count how many sides it has, and measure each side if they are different sizes, then you could get a better number out of it. When dealing with what could happen with the public as a whole is a little harder, from something like a war to how people react to an ad. Someone has to look back at previous times with similar events to make a judgment and they can't just roll a die to help them. And that sometimes might not help at all. Many different factors play into why something happened and that can change with time. I mentioned ads earlier. Ads that were popular in the past, if use today may get a different reaction from the public due to what was acceptable or common back then may not be now. Even then, for someone to calculate a chance, that same something had to have happened before, and preferably multiple times.
yeah, calling slippery slope has always confused me because i always think one can make a reasonable argument to prove their point- dk if they ever do tho
He does this for like every video at the end. Like the one about correlation does not always mean causation. He said something like my popcorn got cold because my ice cream melted (They were in separate bowls).
Is the reason he always swaps outfits meant to be a reference to the Emperor Has No Clothes fable? Since in every episode he’s disproving an argument someone is making (thus showing that the emperor ‘has no clothes’)
I think it's also worth pointing out that what ultimately brought down Cambodia's genocidal government was a war with Vietnam. So while communism initially spread to Vietnam's neighboring countries, it's not like they were all buddy-buddy
@@saviet4222 Well, what do you mean by that? They stopped supporting them by 1973, before they had come to power. All in all, the US and China supported the faction for much longer, only ending support in 1993
As others in the comments section have pointed out, this video mischaracterizes the slippery slope argument with regard to the premise laid out in the opening quote from Alfred Acorn. It’s not the probability of a particular series of events unfolding to a very particular ultimate outcome (unless you’re the Kwisatz Haderach). It refers to the notion that once some moral or ideological thresholds are crossed, further reaches become increasingly indefensible. So you often hear “slippery slope” used in free speech arguments. For example, if we allow the powers that be punish speech that's deemed offensive, what’s to stop them from preventing any speech just because they don’t like it and who becomes the arbiter of what's considered offensive? From there, could they compel speech that suits their motives? And if so, what are the punishments for infractions? Fines? Imprisonment?
Unfortunately, Domino Theory led to the US propping up hard right dictators in many nations, especially Central America, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today.
@@triccele y argentina, y casi toda America central, en Uruguay aún hay gente que no tiene respuesta de sus familiares desaparecidos, aquí en colombia mataron la única posibilidad de progreso ( aparte de quitarnos Panamá) en Panamá en los 90's invadieron.. en Venezuela están hasta el borde con los bloqueos..toda Latinoamérica tiene cuentas pendientes con USA.
Okay, but if you were having a political meeting and a demon appeared out of nowhere and snapped his fingers to swap clothes with the speaker at the meeting, would you interrupt him?
For people who don't agree with the logic explained here. The demon doesn't have an issue with talking about possibilities that may or may not happen, or events that don't have a 100% chance of happening. Sure, discuss all possible scenarios, especially the one extreme case you're worried might happen. The issue here is that politicians tend to exaggerate some extreme event as something which is inevitable, simply to suit their own political goals. Misinforming the people, using fear-mongering to justify your wars. Maybe don't lie to your people? And don't exaggerate stuff just to justify your political stance.
The slippery slope argument has bad uses, but I can also be used legitimately with real concern, bad policies and dystopian changes can slowly ruin a society, kind of like boiling ba frog alive slowly Your math was wrong, you used his bad logic to use math as dominos, in reality, one bad scenario might have multiple 50% chances, meaning at least one of those chances could come true. Anyway, I hope I got my point across, just because he used the argument wrongly, doesn't mean it's entirely a logical fallacy
@@fissionplane32 that's not the point of the video. People misuse numbers and statistics to justify their own goals, literally mislead the public- that's the point here. Sure the extreme event could be highly possible, but it's wrong and misleading to say it's the ONLY possible outcome. Also, Slippery slope IS a logical fallacy, they literally explained the math in the video.
@@alexbanks4219 yeah ok, I guess the president put out a not-well-thought-through statement, but neither did ted ed, they claimed that we should avoid using slippery slopes in an argument, which pissed me off because of how prevalent slippery slopes are
@@fissionplane32 I mean, I feel it is better to avoid them too, because people have a tendency to exaggerate stuff to suit their opinions and needs. Why not use better techniques than an argument that people tend to misuse?
Great logical breakdown of the slippery slope fallacy. However, most of the time people who use it are reacting to fear or at least using fear to manipulate and absolutely refuse to look at or acknowledge logic and reason. Where we make the mistake is to constantly engage the manipulator and try to change their minds, which is not going to happen, especially when we keep featuring them and giving them a platform and recognition. We should be engaging the rest of people with logic, reason, and education and show them how to combat manipulation of emotions (like this video is doing).
Just because something's a fallacy, doesn't mean the argument is wrong/bad. Fallacies only indicate logical gaps in argumentation, and should not be used to dismiss arguments. You should do an episode on "the Fallacy Fallacy" for all of the insufferable people in this comment section and around the world.
@@noobestofdamall False. Choosing one standard by which to evaluate everything is foolish. Argumentation by logic is not the only way to make a good argument. Argument from experience; argument by experimentation, empirical/forensic argument; circumstantial argument; pathos & ethos argumentation; etc. Even if logical argumentation were the only appropriate standard, a single logical fallacy does not deconstruct an entire argument except for in the very strictest sense. If your argument consists of some 30 or so axioms, premises, and deductions, a single logical gap may not do much to affect the conclusion, provided the other steps are sound. For instance, the slippery slope in the video assumes that an entire argument is wrong only because the final conclusion does not manifest, but in real life, a slippery slope argument often implies that any progression in that direction is bad and that the further the progress, the worse it is. If someone is concerned about A leading to Z and, instead, A leads to W, it is little consolation in saying, "See? I told you that you were wrong!" No. In that case, they were mostly right -- much more so than the person who claims, "That's just a slippery slope fallacy!"
@@mr.johnson3844 I've never heard it called a "Slippery Slope Fallacy" before which is what made this a bit odd to me. I took philosophy classes in college a decade ago so I'm definitely rusty, but I don't understand why a more simple example was used.
@@Jaigarful this was brought-up in my high school speach class and i mostly took it with a grain of salt. i felt too much emphasis was placed on "bad argument" than considering actual evidence or trends. flawed logic in and of itself. these videos seem to be targeting major historical incidences and how logical fallacies can ruin/end peoples' lives. this isn't really the best example, though...
For those who don't want to read my entire reply below (TL;DR), this video is, sadly, of pretty poor quality to most put out in this series. President Eisenhower's answer, as directly quoted from Public Papers of the Presidents, 1954, p. 382: "You have, of course, both the specific and the general when you talk about such things. "First of all, you have the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs. "Then you have the possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world. "Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the 'falling domino' principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences. "Now, with respect to the first one, two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important. There are others, of course, the rubber plantations and so on. "Then with respect to more people passing under this domination, Asia, after all, has already lost some 450 million of its peoples to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can't afford greater losses. "But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you begin to talk about areas that not only multiply the disadvantages that you would suffer through loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are talking really about millions and millions and millions of people. "Finally, the geographical position achieved thereby does many things. It turns the so-called island defensive chain of Japan, Formosa, of the Philippines and to the southward; it moves in to threaten Australia and New Zealand. "It takes away, in its economic aspects, that region that Japan must have as a trading area or Japan, in turn, will have only one place in the world to go- that is, toward the Communist areas in order to live. "So, the possible consequences of the loss are just incalculable to the free world." You'll notice a few things, maybe. If you don't, let me point them out for you. 1. The statement alluded to in the video was not an individual statement, but rather a listing of several considerations when approaching Policy in the region. 2. The entirety of the third consideration, the focal point of the basis of this video, uses language multiple times such as "might", "could", and "possible." However, at timestamp 1:15, and these are your words exact, you claim "Eisenhower claims, that by virtue of what he calls the "falling domino principle", Communist control of Vietnam would be the "beginning of a disintegration" that would be certain to cause "incalculable loss." You use his quote, but you quote him incorrectly. His statement is that the third consideration "might" be of something, an analogy for that thing, followed by "could have" an outcome that "would have" profound influences. 3. While we're on the topic of the "Falling Domino" principle, at timestamp 1:10, you point out President Eisenhower's mention of the "falling domino pollicy with the words, and I quote, "what he calls the "falling domino principle." This doesn't mean he coined the phrase or originated the idea. But the wording of your call out is misleading. Intentional? The point is, the first mentions and uses of the "principle" are generally attributed to President Harry S. Truman in the 1940's, to justify sending support to Greece and Turkey. 4. Finally, as President Eisenhower points out in his last sentence, all the preceding points to his third consideration are "possible consequences" and that the extent of those consequences are incalculable. That is, from point a in the argument to point zed, there is a path. It is a "possible path." President Eisenhower may even have believed it was the probable path. His point was that if, if that path progressed to point zed, the loss would be incalculable. Of course, let's not forget that there have been many examples through history since then of just such attempts at 'exporting' control and Communism past the borders of the USSR, and in the guise of a freely elected government, Russia in the more current time. And lastly, even when an argument depends on the possibility of a chain of events you may deem a 'slippery slope' argument, that reliance does not necessarily invalidate that argument. There are many examples of action taken on strings of chance happenings, each dependent on the prior step. What makes these arguments compelling is the consideration of the relationship of risk to impact. You may rightly point out that at each step the odds of a thing happening drop, versus my argument that they may still happen. But if the impact of that event is consequential enough, it must still be valid. The steps, or web of possible steps, to being struck by lightning are there being a storm, one of us being outside, a lightning strike happening, that bolt strikes you or me. That's a horrible framework for the argument that in a storm you and I should remain safely inside. And yet, it's not an invalid argument in relation to both the possible outcome should you or I be struck and the fact that people have been struck. Of all your videos, this one is the only to not sit well with me. But I must say it sits rather poorly. .
@@konchady yes, and must use a circumstance where the slippery slope did not come to pass; when it has many times before. Indeed, Liberalism actually shows that the Domino Theory is what least somewhat valid, as that is how it spread between 1776/89-1918.
Slippery slope arguments usually rest on the idea that human beings respect precedents and clear boundary lines, but once those precedents and boundary lines are broken, it is hard to establish new ones. Due to human psychology, they are usually not fallacies.
Thinking back to my college years and Philosophy classes, I don't think I've ever heard it presented as a "Slippery Slope Fallacy". Its was always presented as a "Slippery Slope Argument".
The main trouble I have seen from the almost-intelligent is they leap from "Slippery slope is a fallacy!" to "Slippery slopes cannot happen!" which is a similar fallacy just with the probability inverted.
Ultimately the issue is that you just don’t know what the numbers are or how long the chain is.... it’s only a fallacy insofar as the steps aren’t logical progressions and there are excessive numbers of steps. 4-5 reasonably likely steps leading to an outcome is not a necessarily a fallacy
Of course the more the steps the more the variation, but as long as there are more than one steps involved it's easy to fall into this fallacy. As you see from the last example if 25 steps have 99% probability of happening and only the last step has 50% chances, the total probability changes from 78% to 38%. So you need to look at and calculate the probability of each and every step, cause it will greatly affect the final outcome.
Exactly. I didn't think the mathematical argument was a particularly good one. Firstly, 78% is still quite a high chance, and secondly that figure is based on there being 26 steps, when in reality it's likely to be a lot fewer
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz it is based on it being 26 steps, sure. But that it would in reality be a lot fewer? I don't agree. Maybe only if you selectively consider the events you subjectively deem of importance. In reality every single micro-event - such as i a leader says something or doesn't, makes a visit to another leader or doesn't, etc, etc are also to consider an event possibly leading to another event. Also, even if reality would offer far less events, the likelihood for "winning" is not necessarily even close to the >80% on each of these events.
I really liked the set up, but I had hoped this video would explain the difference between slippery slopes that are true and slippery slopes that are false. For example, one effect can make another independent effect more likely and it is important to stay wary of how seemingly independent events can reinforce each other. A lot of the time, such seemingly independent events will be described fallaciously as being a slippery slope argument when it's a description of a systemic failure. This video doesn't do a good job explaining that.
The example used in the video is a good example of this. He assigns each variable as being independent, and a necessarily straight chain (although contradicts that idea later), when in reality, if Vietnam fell and that only directly caused Laos to fall, maybe that would give the two the strength needed to threaten Cambodia into place, which increases the likelihood of other countries falling so on and so forth. Not saying it’s likely, but the slippery slope is only a fallacy when you argue to discredit it, otherwise it’s called risk assessment and mitigation
These are great videos. It's easy to dismiss them as overly simple, pedantic, or basic common sense, but you have to remind yourself that people, masses of people, actually fall down these pits and cause events that change the world. I do believe a certain wall in American politics is very related to a slippery slope argument, and look at the following it earned its proponent. The most important thing is to remember that you're probably not immune to the pits yourself, though, and these videos are clear-cut reminders of the idea.
A Demon of Reason video about Vietnamese history and posted right on the celebration of the August Revolution is just what we need! Thanks a lot @TED-Ed!!
Thank you for giving the actual fear and reasoning behind the Domino Theory some focus. It may have been a fallacy, but it wasn’t the “if one nation falls then any nation can fall” most people today paint it as.
The problem is that the "slippery slope fallacy" argument is nowadays used too often automatically and without justification, as a response to any warning or any reasonable justified prediction. If we say something is unsustainable, no matter how many proofs we give, the standard response of many will be "it's a slippery slope fallacy, so you are wrong and I am right!"
The problem with the "slippery slope" is that as much as it can be used to justify action were it is not needed calling it a fallacy can equally be used to justify inaction were action is very much needed. allowing things to fester and get worse. I have seen the latter play out way too many times in my life to believe it's right to call the "slippery slope" a fallacy.
The “slippery slope” is a fallacy to when one thing happens, people assume the extreme would be inevitable. In what situation would the possible outcome be extreme and occur that frequently? Besides even if you did see that many extremes take place, the fallacy itself only targets the logic that the worst possible result is inevitable, not possible.
@@terrylap6132 I have rarely seen people claim the extreme is inevitable. This fallacy is mostly brought up by pseudo-intellectuals when people point out a development that could lead to an extreme result. But seeing these developments is especially important in politics because there are actors who purposely work towards the extreme. If unopposed they have a much better chance of succeeding. And the longer you wait the harder it is to oppose them. Using the example in the video, it would be too late to start acting when the Soviets had already conquered Asia because they would have amassed more power and more resources with each conquest. Without the US involvement in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea the anti-communist forces in those countries wouldn't have stood a chance.
The problem isn’t that such an event is “inevitable”, just that we should treat it as such. There are countless examples of slippery slopes that have happened and especially when each step is catastrophic at some level then it becomes more dire. As the outcome increases in how severe the result would be, the more you have to treat it like it’s a guarantee, even if it’s not. Anything that threatens the well fare of millions should be treated like it’s inevitable even if it’s a small chance. The worse the possible result, the more you need to treat it like it will happen. 50/50 odds that you might run out of milk over the weekend? Who cares. A 0.1% chance millions of people will die? Pour everything you’ve got into it to make sure that we get the number lower.
I don't think the examples you provide are exactly similar to the ones provided on the video. The point of the slippery slope falacy is not whether or not catastrophic predictions should be treated seriously, but rather that *portraying* a potential outcome as catastrophic with a large number of potential factors in the middle is not logical. The fact that *some* examples of slippery slopes have become true doesn't prove or disprove that other slippery slopes are more likely to come true. That's a hasty generalization. If a single event is probable, no matter how unlikely, we should prepare for it. If a single event is the consequence of a long string of events, we should prepare for the problems at the start of that string of events, not the last one, which is the point that is made in the video.
You: You shouldn't smoke that cigarette, it will lead you to addiction, many more cigarettes and eventually lung cancer! Me, enlightened: *chuckles* Well, actually
Around 4th minute you mention steps A-Z leading to something and their probabilities. However, you're entirely omitting the fact that there can be a number of ways for A to lead to Z. If, for example, our A is a cup being thrown from our hand, and Z being the cup's contents spilled, we can have a number of middle steps. The cup can fall on the ground, it can hit a wall, it can smash against the ceiling. Each possibility only has some likelihood, but overall likelihood of Z happening will be equal to their sum.
Funnily thing about the slippery slope faculty is when it's regarding authoritarian governments, it's not a fallacy at all, it's a guideline. Gradual change, a slippery slope, pushing citizens more and more until they have no idea how they got there. The Nazis did it, the soviets did it, the Chinese did it and are still doing it. This is why arguing that something is a slippery slope when governments are involved is the slippery slop fallacy... fallacy. Since they absolutely can, and do, this all the time. Even non-authoritarian ones. And do you know why? Because it works remarkably well.
Assuming all the events in a chain are independent (3:00) isn't a reasonable assumption. When people are making a slippery slope argument, they are arguing precisely that the events are _not_ independent. And sure, assuming the events are independent makes the maths much, much less complicated, but I don't think that's a fair assumption to make in this kind of scenario. The principle the demon is making still stands, of course--that slippery slope arguments generally overstate the likelihood of the eventual outcome. I just wanted to nitpick this particular point.
What is more interesting is the hostilities between the communist Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge or the Chinese covernment. It was definitely not a domino effect.
Us vietnamese didn't want to spread anything, we just want peace, Khmer rouge help china to ruined our peace ( because china didn't want to spread communist too, they just want to gain power so they support khmer rouge and tried to invade us in 1979 ) if you ask i will explain the reason vietnamese followed communist
Exactly. The US was fearing a domino effect with Vietnam and neighboring countries acting as puppets of the soviets or chineses, while the vietnamese mainly just wanted to govern themselves and be free of foregin chains.
This video seems to only debunk the "inevitable" slippery slope argument. Slippery slopes are still real things. They're just cautionary to what could happen instead of inevitable. Part of the defect in this video is that it only considers mindless statistical likelihood. But few things that concern humans to the point of worrying about a slippery slope are mindless statistical possibilities. They're more often driven by the determination of other humans to make it happen, and that throws the statistics all out of whack.
Especially because humans know slippery slopes work to control a populace. For example, authoritarian governments do a classic thing where they add more and more laws. It begins with 'just' one thing. Just one more law. Just a little more safely. Just a little breach of privacy. Just a little more, more, more. The definition of a slippery slope, quickly turning into a cascade down the hill.
Unfortunately this doesn’t hold up to reality after reading Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman human cognitive basis are hard to overcome even by professional statisticians and scientists
Stats aren't everything, as that only assumes randomness. Humans have agendas, and can push slippery slopes on purpose. Like authoritarian governments, for example.
Excellent logical argument! However, there is one example in the graphics which doesn’t belong, and as a mainframe programmer from the 1970s through the 2000s, I lived through the Y2K era. This, unlike the other examples, was NOT a case of the “slippery slope” being wrong, and ignored, proving that the concern was misplaced; in fact, there was not much “slope” involved, but there WAS a big problem, or rather a series of problems ranging in size from small to huge. Each computer system HAD to be modified to avoid its OWN bad outcomes, which would be 100% likely to happen if not fixed. Each unfixed system would have led to unwanted real world problems of various magnitudes (eg, a computer-controlled vault intended to be unlocked Monday through Friday would instead be unlocked Saturday through Wednesday until corrected, since 1/1/1900 was a Monday, but 1/1/2000 was a Saturday; or, someone born in 1935 and thus turning 65 during the year, would have been tagged in Social Security as -35 years old (or more likely the sign would be dropped), and thus not eligible for benefits until 2100!). To the extent that systems affect one another, more trouble would have been caused. So unlike the “slippery slope” being wrong, and ignored, proving there WAS no problem, the Y2K was a REAL problem, and once publicized, organizations responsible for ignoring it until 1990 went into OVERDRIVE, hiring MILLIONS of extra programmers to fix it, coordinating their efforts with one another, and getting (most) of the design bugs fixed before 1/1/2000. And shortly afterwards, the excess programmers were let go. So the effort to fix Y2K MAY have been responsible for PART of the Dot-Com bubble which burst shortly after that date!
@Draghoul As someone who worked on that problem for one company, I can assure you that it was NOT very easily fixed. Professional computing involves retaining data over a very long period, and files on tape or DASD (disc) have fixed formats for dates, and often many different dates in one record. The company had to go through a step by step process, and discuss the changes to the format of records in each type of file. Then for each file type, modify each program that uses it, but don’t put into production YET. For each file type, write and test a ONE TIME program to read the file with 2-digit years, and reformat it with 4-digit years (and adopt a consistent rule that two-digit years below a certain number, eg 25, must be prefixed with 20, while years above that number must be prefixed with 19). That one time conversion program must be run one time for EACH generation of that file, and the reformatted file must replace the formerly official file of that generation. And a date must be set for a huge work party to convert the whole shop at once. Then after doing that for the more recent generations, go back and convert the older file generations before monthly, quarterly, and annual jobs are run. It WAS a big deal, partly because so many managers put it off till the last half year. I suspect that much of the employment boom in the nineties was not due to the “dot-com bubble” but to the need for crash conversion projects. So no, it was NOT “blown out of proportion.” It was a very real problem, and the reason it did not “end the world” is that it WAS taken seriously, if only at the last minute, by most companies. The few who did not suffered financially, and some of them probably went bankrupt.
Something to ponder is how falsly accusing an argument the Slippery Slope fallacy can also be an issue. I've seen people with only a phantom of logical knowledge claim any argument that presents a likely solution is a slippery slope. There's a difference between saying (A will cause Z, 100%) and (A will likely cause B), especially if there's evidence of such a case.
Although I appreciate the point and the concept of slippery slopes, a situation like the Cold War and the Vietnam war are much easier judged in hindsight then in the heat of the moment. It’s, of course, so much easier to judge Russian/Soviet communism 30 years later, compared to living in it at the time.
One might assume that forestalling the fall to communism may have been the very thing that hastened its eventual collapse as well. An early fall to communism might have allowed the region more time to sort out what does and doesn't work. Communism would have spread further before the trade offs become more noticeable. Not to mention, carpet bombing a country for 20 years doesn't exactly set up a new government for success. China is still communist. Apparently if the entire industrialized world doesn't engage in a war , cold or hot , with a communist nation, it doesn't necessarily fail on its own merits.
Per Dan Olsen and Ian from innuendo studios' videos, often statements are made in bad faith, knowing the argument either holds no ground, or feature various logical fallacy. Some people support those points because of what those statements are meant to protect.
Here's a physics perspective on this: if you're comparing something to dominoes you may as well be admiting defeat. An upright domino is a metastable state, it wants to fall over and is only waiting for the slightest excuse to do so. Stopping the first domino will not stop the last one from falling when a light breeze could cause any domino in the chain to go off. In comparing the red scare to a series of dominoes, Mr Eisenhower is inadvertently implying that the whole world actually really wants to be communist and is just waiting for a slight disturbance to catalyze that change.
They have a weird hero complex. Though many countries like to see themselves as heros. It is a demagogic tool. But Western countries are usually a bit more self-critical especially with their history.
I don't think the slippery slope argument is completely wrong. It will have some applications, and honestly it wasn't wrong to try to contain communism to other countries, but the execution was often wrong (like in South America when CIA supported tyrants to combat communism and serve corporate interests). But Korea without US intervention would be completely horrible, and many other Asian countries were probably deterred from becoming communist out of a general fear of American intervention (e.g. the communist party in the Philippines never really took off). If we had just ignored the affairs of Asia, it would probably be communist by now, maybe even a Chinese USSR, with North Korea like dictators a standard place...
Except it's all propaganda and charisma. Most of the leaders in charge rarely believe these statements, but make them to increase patriotism among their own constituents. With the shortened time between events and reporting nowadays it's getting more creative.
Good points, but I usually hear slippery slopes as "A is happening now people are arguing for B and C, and the fringe wants everything from D to G. G is catastrophic and is adjacent to the worse H. Should we stop at A, B, or C?" I feel slippery slope gets misused often along that path. There's probably another fallacy at play. After some research Arguing from a Fallacy is also a fallacy.
The trick with slippery slope logic, is to show at least show 3 steps between them. By becoming a voice of reasoned warning, you become more convincing. As the end result is proven more likely, stronger action can be taken to prevent the ending. And I see a fallacy in the 99% for each step from A to Z. Once each step is taken, the chance for Z to be reached increases. For simplicity: the chance to flip 2 tails is 25%, while the chance with the second will flip tails once the first is tails is 50%.
Nothing he says establishes that slippery slope arguments are fallacies. All he is saying, in effect, is that it is almost always the case that the outcome predicted by the slippery slope argument will usually not be inevitable. That does not matter, however, because for a slippery slope argument to be a good argument, it only has to be the case that the predicted outcome is reasonably probable relative to its likely costs or benefits. In point of fact, almost all arguments that turn on likely outcomes are, in effect, slippery slope arguments, or can readily be rephrased as them. For example, you should not start smoking (event A), because if you start smoking, you will likely continue to smoke (event B), because tobacco is known to be habit-forming. If you continue to smoke, there is a good chance you will cause harmful mutations in the cells in your lungs (event C), because tobacco smoke contains multiple toxic mutagens. If harmful mutations occur in the cells in your lungs, you may contract lung cancer (event D), because mutations often lead to cancer. If you get lung cancer, you may die prematurely and in great pain (event E), because lung cancer is often fatal and usually causes terrible pain. So you should not start smoking. Of course, no one step in this argument is inevitable: not everyone who starts smoking continues to smoke, not everyone who continues smoking causes mutations in his lung cells, not every mutation leads to cancer, and not everyone who gets cancer dies of it. Does that mean the argument is wrong? Of course not. A slippery slope argument will not always be right, and, because no one knows the future, it will always be possible to debate just how likely one outcome or another might be, but just because a particular kind of argument is not right in every case does not mean that it is a fallacy. A fallacy is an argument whose form is inherently unsound; it will not produce a valid result even if its presuppositions are true. A slippery slope argument, by contrast, _will_ produce a valid result _if_ its presuppositions are true. As for the specific argument about Vietnam, the fact that the worst-case scenario (or even just a worse-case scenario) did not occur does not mean that that was any more inevitable than the worst-case scenario itself was ever inevitable. It is quite possible, and I would submit highly likely, that the very fact that the US intervened to delay the fall of South Vietnam for as long as we did prevented the worst-case scenario from happening. Most of the other countries of Southeast Asia, including critically Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and especially Indonesia, used that time to defeat or suppress their own domestic Communist movements. In other words, the domino theory was likely a self-denying prophecy. The argument implied by the demon, that the actual outcome was inevitable and thus the costs paid to bring that outcome about were unnecessary, is itself the fallacy. Call it the post-hoc inevitability fallacy.
Please post more videos about -Presocratic philosophers -Islamic golden age (discoveries,achievements) -Aristotle tutoring Alexander the Great -Ottoman Empire astronomy (quran verses)
It's important to keep in mind that this also applies to a POSITIVE scenario as well. Even if a utopia can be achieved, it's entirely possible a step will go wrong along the way and what may have once been considered to be the utopian dream can turn into a dystopian nightmare. This is true of EVERY form of government.
"Babe wake up, a new Demon of Reason video just dropped." not my comment, somebody else posted it on a different demon video, i just thought it was funny.
The problem with his argument is that he acts as those things are random. They are not. Virtually every time I have heard people speak of the slippery slope, they are talking about human driven events. If a domino does not fall, the people who want Z to happen can either try again to make it fall or skip it and knock the next one down. Politics on any scale is about people acting on other people, not people rolling dice
Exactly Its normally cases like "If we let the boss cut 10 cents of our wage soon he will be cutting a dollar" Its usually just another way to say "give them an inch they will take a mile"
I'm going to beg to differ with this video for three reasons: 1. The Domino Theory never claimed that the whole world would fall to communism, rather that it could if nothing was done to prevent it. If I say that throwing a snowball on a mountain may cause an avalanche, I am not saying that it inevitably will. I am saying that there is a chance it may, and that we can reduce that chance by building dams or other safety structures, or by simply not throwing the snowball in the first place. Likewise, Domino Theory was a call to arms with the intent of preventing the spread of communism. Had the world done nothing, domino theory could very well have been fulfilled. 2. Domino Theory does not imply a single line of dominoes falling in a neat A-Z order as the video assumes. Dominoes often can be arranged so that one domino hits two or three others, splitting off into all kinds of different branches and patterns. The video said that "a web" was a better analogy, but there is not necessarily a contradiction between a web and a sprawling, branching set of dominos. The two need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, dominos are a better analogy overall because they imply causation, whereas a web does not. So, really, the Domino theory communicates better how the fall of Vietnam might cause the further spread of communism, which was Eisenhower's correct argument. 3. Domino Theory was based on started communist ideology and goals. Communism was never content with one or two countries. Rather, it required constant expansion in order to survive. The main point of Domino theory is that as communism expands, more people and resources come under its control, thereby making its further expansion easier. Like the Huns in ancient Asia, the further the conquest, the faster it accelerates. This is not a "slippery slope" argument, but rather a statement of the laws of synergy. Therefore, there is no fallacy in Domino Theory, just a warning bell to all nations based on correct interpretations of reality as it then was.
Is it a logical fallacy to presume someone is speaking in absolute terms when they've made no such guarantee? This is a problem I've observed, regularly, in people who dismiss an argument as a "slippery slope fallacy," simply because their opponent predicted an outcome based on current circumstances remaining constant.
I think the main issue is when someone only acknowledges one possible outcome for a series of events in their argument. A person may not SAY that their presented outcome is the only one that could happen, but a refusal to consider alternative outcomes may retroactively make one’s proposition fall into a slippery slope fallacy.
There are a few issues with the reasoning here. First, it's called the slippery SLOPE, not the slippery CLIFF. The assumption of a slippery slope argument isn't that taking that first step means a certainty of the disastrous outcome occurring, but that it increases the odds of the disastrous outcome occurring... which is true. Vietnam's fall led to the fall of other nations, which brought the world more fully under the Communist umbrella, which reduced the number of steps between the current state of affairs and the undesirable outcome of global Communist domination, making the odds of the eventuality more likely. The fact that global Communist domination didn't happen doesn't mean that the fall of Vietnam was a positive event. Second, the slippery slope is more often used as a way to describe human behavior than anything else, and it is a well-known fact of human psychology that enabling a singular event makes it easier for follow-up events to occur. A person who was not previously an addict to alcohol is significantly more likely to become a drunkard after they've drank their first glass. Since human civilization is made up of human beings, it is entirely possible for a culture to become more permissive of a particular type of event after the first event has been allowed. Some of these events and subsequent changes are good, undoubtedly, but there is no guarantee that every cultural change is good.
And we're seeing it today. The moral fabric of our civilization has been slowly corroded by malicious actors and their sheep. It wont stop. Zoo files are next they're already gaining acceptance
The most recent slippery slope argument I can think of is the claim that AI will gain sentience and use that sentience to exterminate humans. As much as this idea is stated by many, and as much as the thought freaks me out, it a huge slippery slope fallacy in reality.
@@osheridan requiring people to lock their car doors leads to requiring people to stay in their home and not be near any windows all the time unless directed otherwise
@@robertweltonsworldofanimat4525 y ou r underatanding of what a slipwry slope is implies imediate payoff and no intermediate benchmarks. It took 20 years to get from civil unions to le gali zing pe dop hilia, but we got here.
The problem with calling it a slippery slope fallacy is that well more than 50% the slope is slippery. Anything controversial is going to be introduced by first getting the camel’s nose under the tent.
TW: Please note that this video features a strobe effect at 5:28.
Hiiiii 🤗
What's Strobe Effect?
Hiiii
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
@@notsezz5318 woah really? i've been scammed!!!!! /s
*_"The possibilities are not a chain -- they're a web."_*
My favorite quote from this episode!
and you can pull the web in such a way that some of the strings gets shorter and the others get longer, which is what a slippery slope is, it makes certain events more probable.
I hate people who want to require me to lock my car doors
"Don't worry, I may have that power, but I promise not to use it."
TedED knows how much we like to see him stealing clothes🤣
Him?
I need more data about his power, I want to assume he would teleport the entire world’s clothes onto his body and be wrapped in a ton of clothes because it sounds funny but that would be an apple and oranges fallacy
@@calebmurray4438 The Demon of Reason's Final Smash is just that, but then he rolls over his opponents in a ball of all the clothes on Earth /j
Didn’t Palpatine say that?
@@calebmurray4438 He can teleport himself and other objects. He teleported the t.v. There's no reason he couldn't teleport someone's clothes to a location other than his own body. Tho, it'd be funny
For being a Demon of Reason, you think by now he remember to bring his own suit
An excellent point!
It might result to everyone wearing a suit in everyday wear 🙃
There's a reason behind it
@@ChristianOctavianus A recurring motif, I presume.
Well, he has no reason to.
Every parent and teacher telling you that one bad grade will lead to you being homeless 😠
but i don't get the math he uses to calculate the percentages, so maybe i will become homeless :(
You will become homeless y'know, when you get kicked by your parent, they're doesn't predict bad grades lead to homeless, they'me make it happen
@@hippopotamus_nr2587 probability of independent events is multiplied. For example, event A has a probability of 99%, while event B has a probability of 50%. In order to calculate the percentage that both events will happen, you multiply them. 0.99 times 0.5 is 0.495. So a 49.5% probability that both events will happen. There are more complicated things, like the order in which they happen and if they are dependent or not. But that’s the basic math principle they used in this video…
@@adityashirolkar5038 oooow, thx, appreciate it
Or when they define a "bad grade" as anything less than a A-
A few extra insights on slippery slopes:
Most slippery slope arguments assume no intervention - no risk mitigation. This is like assuming once you get on a highway, you can't get off the highway until you reach the very end.
That point brings up a good way to address slippery slope arguments instead of dismissing them outright. Accept the risks as valid concerns and develop a risk-mitigation plan to prevent those outcomes from happening. This is not unlike deciding which offramp you'll take before you end up at the end of the highway.
Very much this. The slippery slope is not as much of a falacy as some people believe it is. As in they immidiately dismiss the whole argument because it smells of slippery slope. Instead of adressing what would prevent it from turning into a slippery slope.
This.
@@pewpin1039 I agree with you. There’s a difference between a weak argument and an invalid argument. Slippery slopes may not be the best logical arguments but the concerns generally are still valid and can sometimes justify action to mitigate the concerns.
I agree. HOWEVER... to use your (good) analogy, sometimes we're already on the highway headed for the end. We're trying to get off the highway as soon as possible because we know we're getting closer to the end and it's hard to get off. Sometimes others say "what's wrong with continuing to drive on this highway, we can always pull off at the very last exit." But that doesn't always work. Sometimes you're going too fast and you miss the last exit. Sometimes it's too late before you realize you missed it and now you're screwed.
@@UserNameAnonymous Just as there’s no good reason to completely dismiss the risks of a slippery slope argument, there’s no need to be reckless. Assessing risk-reward trades is part of due diligence.
Ok, but can we talk about how cool his apartment/house is? The demon of reason has a sense of style despite having a very empty closet.
Humanity _is_ his closet, and it makes it's own clothes for him too!
Lmao
it was either the house or a full closet
He also has a three-eyed cat and I want me one of those!
so, basically, in order to avoid falling for the fallacy, instead of saying "A *will* result in B", one just needs to say "A *can* result in B", since the problem is the certainty of the catastrophic outcome the subject is supposedly trying to avoid
Pretty much. The issue of the slippery slope fallacy is that it's basically an assumption that every piece that involves event 'A' to end up as result 'Z' will fall PERFECTLY into place, which is another way of saying that because of event 'A', they assume result 'Z' is 100% inevitable
Yeah, and it should be immediately apparent how much of a weaker claim it is (though more accurate), as there are many other outcomes that are equally likely.
Grossly oversimplified, and I'm pretty sure the video never meant to say that. It says more of how unlikely it is that B will happen, or that B's almost impossible occurence has anything to do with A. "Can" could still be taken to mean the sequence of events is more probable than DoR was trying to explain.
Still, it is hard to predict how the public will react to something or the exact chance of something occurring. Saying can is still more accurate than saying will. For example, you know that a coin or die will have a certain chance of one happening. A coin has 50-50 chance for heads or tails. A die has a 1 in 6 chance for any side. But say you have an irregular die with an unknown number of faces. Some sides have a higher or lower chance of happening. You have to find out how likely a specific side will face up. A common way is too roll a certain number of times and record the number of times that side faces up. This gives a decent percentage to guess with, but it can't be for sure 100% accurate since you could be lucky a few rolls or not. If you could use math, count how many sides it has, and measure each side if they are different sizes, then you could get a better number out of it. When dealing with what could happen with the public as a whole is a little harder, from something like a war to how people react to an ad. Someone has to look back at previous times with similar events to make a judgment and they can't just roll a die to help them. And that sometimes might not help at all. Many different factors play into why something happened and that can change with time. I mentioned ads earlier. Ads that were popular in the past, if use today may get a different reaction from the public due to what was acceptable or common back then may not be now. Even then, for someone to calculate a chance, that same something had to have happened before, and preferably multiple times.
yeah, calling slippery slope has always confused me because i always think one can make a reasonable argument to prove their point- dk if they ever do tho
Oversimplified was right. Drawing Eisenhower is very hard
there‘s a tax for that
@jveilleux38 jveilleux38 DUDE!
SO uncool.
Yeah and all that but you know what easy?
Honey!
Awww..
..wait a minute! He’s Eisenhower! He’s not hard to draw! YOU are hard to draw!
@@bigboots1177 Sacre-BLEUUUUUUUUUU!!!!
Good on TedEd for actually teaching critical thinking skills with these videos. The world sorely needs them.
I know I do....
You didn't get taught this at school? I had a whole year of logic and argumentation in fifth year of secundarie school.
@@pedrochiapello In American schools, a course in logic or argumentation isn't a requirement.
Yeh most people r sheeps they need the opinions of the majority to form theyre own
Just as long as you agree with their conclusions on a specific critical topic.
I love how his last sentence is a slippery slope fallacy.
missed the wink though!!
He winked though
which sentence?
The demon of reason ought to meet the demon of reason, eh?
He does this for like every video at the end. Like the one about correlation does not always mean causation. He said something like my popcorn got cold because my ice cream melted (They were in separate bowls).
Is the reason he always swaps outfits meant to be a reference to the Emperor Has No Clothes fable? Since in every episode he’s disproving an argument someone is making (thus showing that the emperor ‘has no clothes’)
Oooo
@SARAH GIBBS and did you get one? And what did they say?
@SARAH GIBBS replying for updates
@Sarah Gibbs haha thank you!! Let me know what they say
Probably not, but that's a fantastic observation
I think it's also worth pointing out that what ultimately brought down Cambodia's genocidal government was a war with Vietnam. So while communism initially spread to Vietnam's neighboring countries, it's not like they were all buddy-buddy
That wonderful feisty Little thing called nationalism got in the way.
agree
And Vietnam was also opposed by China and the United States, who both supported the Khmer Rouge in hopes of weakening Vietnam
@@jovan1198 Vietnam shouldn’t help them to power in the first place.
@@saviet4222 Well, what do you mean by that? They stopped supporting them by 1973, before they had come to power. All in all, the US and China supported the faction for much longer, only ending support in 1993
The demon of reason's back, and I couldn't be more excited.
“Only 78%…far from an inevitability.”
Uh, yeah. If something was 78% likely to kill me, I’m not taking those chances.
Likelyhood implies lack of agency. One of a handful of tactics employed in order to deter from examination.
As others in the comments section have pointed out, this video mischaracterizes the slippery slope argument with regard to the premise laid out in the opening quote from Alfred Acorn. It’s not the probability of a particular series of events unfolding to a very particular ultimate outcome (unless you’re the Kwisatz Haderach). It refers to the notion that once some moral or ideological thresholds are crossed, further reaches become increasingly indefensible.
So you often hear “slippery slope” used in free speech arguments. For example, if we allow the powers that be punish speech that's deemed offensive, what’s to stop them from preventing any speech just because they don’t like it and who becomes the arbiter of what's considered offensive? From there, could they compel speech that suits their motives? And if so, what are the punishments for infractions? Fines? Imprisonment?
I love these series with demon of reason!!! Made my dayyy~
Unfortunately, Domino Theory led to the US propping up hard right dictators in many nations, especially Central America, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today.
NATO: Destabilises central america and near east.
Also NATO: "Why are there so many immigrants and refugees coming?"
tfw Afghanistan
And south america..
Also South America. We Chileans are still fighting the consecuences of the dictator put in charge of our country by the USA.
@@triccele y argentina, y casi toda America central, en Uruguay aún hay gente que no tiene respuesta de sus familiares desaparecidos, aquí en colombia mataron la única posibilidad de progreso ( aparte de quitarnos Panamá) en Panamá en los 90's invadieron.. en Venezuela están hasta el borde con los bloqueos..toda Latinoamérica tiene cuentas pendientes con USA.
video: "can you outsmar-"
me: no next question
0:17 The Canadian River continuously apologizing as it breaks the poor beaver's log dam.
I'm happy to see this becoming a series like "history vs".
I may not know the anatomy of the demon of reason, but that back posture certainly doesn't look comfortable.
The most illogical thing in these videos is the fact that everyone lets the demon talk and just listen.
They live in an universe where Twitter doesn't exist
Okay, but if you were having a political meeting and a demon appeared out of nowhere and snapped his fingers to swap clothes with the speaker at the meeting, would you interrupt him?
@@pageturner2958 Me ? Nope, Those politicians ? With every fibre of their being
@@pageturner2958I’d be running
For people who don't agree with the logic explained here. The demon doesn't have an issue with talking about possibilities that may or may not happen, or events that don't have a 100% chance of happening. Sure, discuss all possible scenarios, especially the one extreme case you're worried might happen. The issue here is that politicians tend to exaggerate some extreme event as something which is inevitable, simply to suit their own political goals. Misinforming the people, using fear-mongering to justify your wars. Maybe don't lie to your people? And don't exaggerate stuff just to justify your political stance.
The slippery slope argument has bad uses, but I can also be used legitimately with real concern, bad policies and dystopian changes can slowly ruin a society, kind of like boiling ba frog alive slowly
Your math was wrong, you used his bad logic to use math as dominos, in reality, one bad scenario might have multiple 50% chances, meaning at least one of those chances could come true.
Anyway, I hope I got my point across, just because he used the argument wrongly, doesn't mean it's entirely a logical fallacy
@@fissionplane32 that's not the point of the video. People misuse numbers and statistics to justify their own goals, literally mislead the public- that's the point here. Sure the extreme event could be highly possible, but it's wrong and misleading to say it's the ONLY possible outcome. Also, Slippery slope IS a logical fallacy, they literally explained the math in the video.
@@alexbanks4219 yeah ok, I guess the president put out a not-well-thought-through statement, but neither did ted ed, they claimed that we should avoid using slippery slopes in an argument, which pissed me off because of how prevalent slippery slopes are
@@fissionplane32 I mean, I feel it is better to avoid them too, because people have a tendency to exaggerate stuff to suit their opinions and needs. Why not use better techniques than an argument that people tend to misuse?
@@alexbanks4219 78% is still quite a high chance though, and in any case in most real life scenarios there are likely to be a lot fewer than 26 steps!
my favourite thing about these videos is how accurate the lip-syncing is and im not sure why!
Great logical breakdown of the slippery slope fallacy. However, most of the time people who use it are reacting to fear or at least using fear to manipulate and absolutely refuse to look at or acknowledge logic and reason.
Where we make the mistake is to constantly engage the manipulator and try to change their minds, which is not going to happen, especially when we keep featuring them and giving them a platform and recognition. We should be engaging the rest of people with logic, reason, and education and show them how to combat manipulation of emotions (like this video is doing).
Who else remembers Vaccine Passports being a slippery slope fallacy?
would “the vaccine leading to the 20th booster existing” be a slippery slope fallacy?
Just because something's a fallacy, doesn't mean the argument is wrong/bad. Fallacies only indicate logical gaps in argumentation, and should not be used to dismiss arguments. You should do an episode on "the Fallacy Fallacy" for all of the insufferable people in this comment section and around the world.
If a logically unsound argument can be good, anything can be.
@@noobestofdamall False. Choosing one standard by which to evaluate everything is foolish. Argumentation by logic is not the only way to make a good argument. Argument from experience; argument by experimentation, empirical/forensic argument; circumstantial argument; pathos & ethos argumentation; etc.
Even if logical argumentation were the only appropriate standard, a single logical fallacy does not deconstruct an entire argument except for in the very strictest sense. If your argument consists of some 30 or so axioms, premises, and deductions, a single logical gap may not do much to affect the conclusion, provided the other steps are sound.
For instance, the slippery slope in the video assumes that an entire argument is wrong only because the final conclusion does not manifest, but in real life, a slippery slope argument often implies that any progression in that direction is bad and that the further the progress, the worse it is. If someone is concerned about A leading to Z and, instead, A leads to W, it is little consolation in saying, "See? I told you that you were wrong!" No. In that case, they were mostly right -- much more so than the person who claims, "That's just a slippery slope fallacy!"
@@mr.johnson3844 I've never heard it called a "Slippery Slope Fallacy" before which is what made this a bit odd to me. I took philosophy classes in college a decade ago so I'm definitely rusty, but I don't understand why a more simple example was used.
@@Jaigarful this was brought-up in my high school speach class and i mostly took it with a grain of salt. i felt too much emphasis was placed on "bad argument" than considering actual evidence or trends. flawed logic in and of itself.
these videos seem to be targeting major historical incidences and how logical fallacies can ruin/end peoples' lives. this isn't really the best example, though...
the vaccine will lead to the 20th booster
For those who don't want to read my entire reply below (TL;DR), this video is, sadly, of pretty poor quality to most put out in this series.
President Eisenhower's answer, as directly quoted from Public Papers of the Presidents, 1954, p. 382:
"You have, of course, both the specific and the general when you talk about such things.
"First of all, you have the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs.
"Then you have the possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world.
"Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the 'falling domino' principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that
would have the most profound influences.
"Now, with respect to the first one, two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important. There are others, of course, the rubber plantations and so on.
"Then with respect to more people passing under this domination, Asia, after all, has already lost some 450 million of its peoples to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can't afford greater losses.
"But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you begin to talk about areas that not only multiply the disadvantages that you would suffer through loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are talking really about millions and millions and millions of people.
"Finally, the geographical position achieved thereby does many things. It turns the so-called island defensive chain of Japan, Formosa, of the Philippines and to the southward; it moves in to threaten Australia and New Zealand.
"It takes away, in its economic aspects, that region that Japan must have as a trading area or Japan, in turn, will have only one place in the world to go- that is, toward the Communist areas in order to live.
"So, the possible consequences of the loss are just incalculable to the free world."
You'll notice a few things, maybe. If you don't, let me point them out for you.
1. The statement alluded to in the video was not an individual statement, but rather a listing of several considerations when approaching Policy in the region.
2. The entirety of the third consideration, the focal point of the basis of this video, uses language multiple times such as "might", "could", and "possible." However, at timestamp 1:15, and these are your words exact, you claim "Eisenhower claims, that by virtue of what he calls the "falling domino principle", Communist control of Vietnam would be the "beginning of a disintegration" that would be certain to cause "incalculable loss." You use his quote, but you quote him incorrectly. His statement is that the third consideration "might" be of something, an analogy for that thing, followed by "could have" an outcome that "would have" profound influences.
3. While we're on the topic of the "Falling Domino" principle, at timestamp 1:10, you point out President Eisenhower's mention of the "falling domino pollicy with the words, and I quote, "what he calls the "falling domino principle." This doesn't mean he coined the phrase or originated the idea. But the wording of your call out is misleading. Intentional? The point is, the first mentions and uses of the "principle" are generally attributed to President Harry S. Truman in the 1940's, to justify sending support to Greece and Turkey.
4. Finally, as President Eisenhower points out in his last sentence, all the preceding points to his third consideration are "possible consequences" and that the extent of those consequences are incalculable. That is, from point a in the argument to point zed, there is a path. It is a "possible path." President Eisenhower may even have believed it was the probable path. His point was that if, if that path progressed to point zed, the loss would be incalculable.
Of course, let's not forget that there have been many examples through history since then of just such attempts at 'exporting' control and Communism past the borders of the USSR, and in the guise of a freely elected government, Russia in the more current time.
And lastly, even when an argument depends on the possibility of a chain of events you may deem a 'slippery slope' argument, that reliance does not necessarily invalidate that argument. There are many examples of action taken on strings of chance happenings, each dependent on the prior step. What makes these arguments compelling is the consideration of the relationship of risk to impact. You may rightly point out that at each step the odds of a thing happening drop, versus my argument that they may still happen. But if the impact of that event is consequential enough, it must still be valid. The steps, or web of possible steps, to being struck by lightning are there being a storm, one of us being outside, a lightning strike happening, that bolt strikes you or me. That's a horrible framework for the argument that in a storm you and I should remain safely inside. And yet, it's not an invalid argument in relation to both the possible outcome should you or I be struck and the fact that people have been struck.
Of all your videos, this one is the only to not sit well with me. But I must say it sits rather poorly.
.
So basically, in order to explain slippery slope fallacy, TedEd created sophistries and strawmen.
@@konchady yes, and must use a circumstance where the slippery slope did not come to pass; when it has many times before. Indeed, Liberalism actually shows that the Domino Theory is what least somewhat valid, as that is how it spread between 1776/89-1918.
Slippery slope arguments usually rest on the idea that human beings respect precedents and clear boundary lines, but once those precedents and boundary lines are broken, it is hard to establish new ones. Due to human psychology, they are usually not fallacies.
Well said!
Thinking back to my college years and Philosophy classes, I don't think I've ever heard it presented as a "Slippery Slope Fallacy". Its was always presented as a "Slippery Slope Argument".
The main trouble I have seen from the almost-intelligent is they leap from "Slippery slope is a fallacy!" to "Slippery slopes cannot happen!" which is a similar fallacy just with the probability inverted.
Ultimately the issue is that you just don’t know what the numbers are or how long the chain is.... it’s only a fallacy insofar as the steps aren’t logical progressions and there are excessive numbers of steps.
4-5 reasonably likely steps leading to an outcome is not a necessarily a fallacy
Of course the more the steps the more the variation, but as long as there are more than one steps involved it's easy to fall into this fallacy. As you see from the last example if 25 steps have 99% probability of happening and only the last step has 50% chances, the total probability changes from 78% to 38%. So you need to look at and calculate the probability of each and every step, cause it will greatly affect the final outcome.
Exactly. I didn't think the mathematical argument was a particularly good one. Firstly, 78% is still quite a high chance, and secondly that figure is based on there being 26 steps, when in reality it's likely to be a lot fewer
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz it is based on it being 26 steps, sure. But that it would in reality be a lot fewer? I don't agree. Maybe only if you selectively consider the events you subjectively deem of importance. In reality every single micro-event - such as i a leader says something or doesn't, makes a visit to another leader or doesn't, etc, etc are also to consider an event possibly leading to another event.
Also, even if reality would offer far less events, the likelihood for "winning" is not necessarily even close to the >80% on each of these events.
@@mahnas92 But are all of those events independent though?
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz they are probably dependent, as you are implying - but that makes every single event even less likely
After I had seen this video, I realized many outcome we didn't even think might be possible from something we would have done. I love this series!
just a greeting from Vietnam, btw, 19/August/1945 marked the day of our revolution against French and Japanese
Vietnam are an example of anti-imperialism and resistence to the US regime. You guys are warriors
I really liked the set up, but I had hoped this video would explain the difference between slippery slopes that are true and slippery slopes that are false.
For example, one effect can make another independent effect more likely and it is important to stay wary of how seemingly independent events can reinforce each other.
A lot of the time, such seemingly independent events will be described fallaciously as being a slippery slope argument when it's a description of a systemic failure. This video doesn't do a good job explaining that.
The example used in the video is a good example of this. He assigns each variable as being independent, and a necessarily straight chain (although contradicts that idea later), when in reality, if Vietnam fell and that only directly caused Laos to fall, maybe that would give the two the strength needed to threaten Cambodia into place, which increases the likelihood of other countries falling so on and so forth. Not saying it’s likely, but the slippery slope is only a fallacy when you argue to discredit it, otherwise it’s called risk assessment and mitigation
If an effect makes another event more likely they are no INdependent, they are dependent
@@thefeof6161 That's not what that means. There's a difference between necessary cause and sufficient cause.
These are great videos. It's easy to dismiss them as overly simple, pedantic, or basic common sense, but you have to remind yourself that people, masses of people, actually fall down these pits and cause events that change the world. I do believe a certain wall in American politics is very related to a slippery slope argument, and look at the following it earned its proponent. The most important thing is to remember that you're probably not immune to the pits yourself, though, and these videos are clear-cut reminders of the idea.
A Demon of Reason video about Vietnamese history and posted right on the celebration of the August Revolution is just what we need! Thanks a lot @TED-Ed!!
Thank you for giving the actual fear and reasoning behind the Domino Theory some focus. It may have been a fallacy, but it wasn’t the “if one nation falls then any nation can fall” most people today paint it as.
At it's root, it was fueled by US paranoia and not good policy making.
The problem is that the "slippery slope fallacy" argument is nowadays used too often automatically and without justification, as a response to any warning or any reasonable justified prediction. If we say something is unsustainable, no matter how many proofs we give, the standard response of many will be "it's a slippery slope fallacy, so you are wrong and I am right!"
The problem with the "slippery slope" is that as much as it can be used to justify action were it is not needed calling it a fallacy can equally be used to justify inaction were action is very much needed. allowing things to fester and get worse. I have seen the latter play out way too many times in my life to believe it's right to call the "slippery slope" a fallacy.
The “slippery slope” is a fallacy to when one thing happens, people assume the extreme would be inevitable. In what situation would the possible outcome be extreme and occur that frequently? Besides even if you did see that many extremes take place, the fallacy itself only targets the logic that the worst possible result is inevitable, not possible.
@@terrylap6132 I have rarely seen people claim the extreme is inevitable. This fallacy is mostly brought up by pseudo-intellectuals when people point out a development that could lead to an extreme result. But seeing these developments is especially important in politics because there are actors who purposely work towards the extreme. If unopposed they have a much better chance of succeeding. And the longer you wait the harder it is to oppose them.
Using the example in the video, it would be too late to start acting when the Soviets had already conquered Asia because they would have amassed more power and more resources with each conquest. Without the US involvement in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Korea the anti-communist forces in those countries wouldn't have stood a chance.
The problem isn’t that such an event is “inevitable”, just that we should treat it as such. There are countless examples of slippery slopes that have happened and especially when each step is catastrophic at some level then it becomes more dire. As the outcome increases in how severe the result would be, the more you have to treat it like it’s a guarantee, even if it’s not. Anything that threatens the well fare of millions should be treated like it’s inevitable even if it’s a small chance. The worse the possible result, the more you need to treat it like it will happen. 50/50 odds that you might run out of milk over the weekend? Who cares. A 0.1% chance millions of people will die? Pour everything you’ve got into it to make sure that we get the number lower.
I don't think the examples you provide are exactly similar to the ones provided on the video. The point of the slippery slope falacy is not whether or not catastrophic predictions should be treated seriously, but rather that *portraying* a potential outcome as catastrophic with a large number of potential factors in the middle is not logical.
The fact that *some* examples of slippery slopes have become true doesn't prove or disprove that other slippery slopes are more likely to come true. That's a hasty generalization. If a single event is probable, no matter how unlikely, we should prepare for it. If a single event is the consequence of a long string of events, we should prepare for the problems at the start of that string of events, not the last one, which is the point that is made in the video.
Totally signifies the legends whom were once portrayed like underachievers
How to contradict the statement in own words:
Dont worry i have that power but im promising not to use it.
Can't wait to tune into my favorite news station that tells me the exact date and current political events every time it starts up
Please make a playlist containing all the fallacy. This stuff is brilliant!
You: You shouldn't smoke that cigarette, it will lead you to addiction, many more cigarettes and eventually lung cancer!
Me, enlightened: *chuckles* Well, actually
Around 4th minute you mention steps A-Z leading to something and their probabilities. However, you're entirely omitting the fact that there can be a number of ways for A to lead to Z. If, for example, our A is a cup being thrown from our hand, and Z being the cup's contents spilled, we can have a number of middle steps. The cup can fall on the ground, it can hit a wall, it can smash against the ceiling. Each possibility only has some likelihood, but overall likelihood of Z happening will be equal to their sum.
Furthermore, how often are there 26 steps to the final outcome?
Funnily thing about the slippery slope faculty is when it's regarding authoritarian governments, it's not a fallacy at all, it's a guideline. Gradual change, a slippery slope, pushing citizens more and more until they have no idea how they got there. The Nazis did it, the soviets did it, the Chinese did it and are still doing it. This is why arguing that something is a slippery slope when governments are involved is the slippery slop fallacy... fallacy. Since they absolutely can, and do, this all the time. Even non-authoritarian ones. And do you know why? Because it works remarkably well.
Assuming all the events in a chain are independent (3:00) isn't a reasonable assumption. When people are making a slippery slope argument, they are arguing precisely that the events are _not_ independent. And sure, assuming the events are independent makes the maths much, much less complicated, but I don't think that's a fair assumption to make in this kind of scenario. The principle the demon is making still stands, of course--that slippery slope arguments generally overstate the likelihood of the eventual outcome. I just wanted to nitpick this particular point.
This is my favorite series! Thanks for posting another one!
What is more interesting is the hostilities between the communist Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge or the Chinese covernment. It was definitely not a domino effect.
Khmer Rouge could have not existed if America didn't invade (but that's not the only reason). But yeah.
Us vietnamese didn't want to spread anything, we just want peace, Khmer rouge help china to ruined our peace ( because china didn't want to spread communist too, they just want to gain power so they support khmer rouge and tried to invade us in 1979 ) if you ask i will explain the reason vietnamese followed communist
Exactly. The US was fearing a domino effect with Vietnam and neighboring countries acting as puppets of the soviets or chineses, while the vietnamese mainly just wanted to govern themselves and be free of foregin chains.
This video seems to only debunk the "inevitable" slippery slope argument. Slippery slopes are still real things. They're just cautionary to what could happen instead of inevitable.
Part of the defect in this video is that it only considers mindless statistical likelihood. But few things that concern humans to the point of worrying about a slippery slope are mindless statistical possibilities. They're more often driven by the determination of other humans to make it happen, and that throws the statistics all out of whack.
yeh...
Especially because humans know slippery slopes work to control a populace. For example, authoritarian governments do a classic thing where they add more and more laws. It begins with 'just' one thing. Just one more law. Just a little more safely. Just a little breach of privacy. Just a little more, more, more. The definition of a slippery slope, quickly turning into a cascade down the hill.
indeed, the entire point of making the argument, is saying we should stop it here, so it doesn't go further
I feel like if everyone took a stats class the world would get along better
Yezzir Miller
Unfortunately this doesn’t hold up to reality after reading Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman human cognitive basis are hard to overcome even by professional statisticians and scientists
Stats aren't everything, as that only assumes randomness. Humans have agendas, and can push slippery slopes on purpose. Like authoritarian governments, for example.
Demon of Reason: steals the president's clothes
Mr President: _nods in absolute agreement_
Bro I sacrificed watching Netflix to watch the demon of reason and I'm not complaining about it
Excellent logical argument! However, there is one example in the graphics which doesn’t belong, and as a mainframe programmer from the 1970s through the 2000s, I lived through the Y2K era. This, unlike the other examples, was NOT a case of the “slippery slope” being wrong, and ignored, proving that the concern was misplaced; in fact, there was not much “slope” involved, but there WAS a big problem, or rather a series of problems ranging in size from small to huge.
Each computer system HAD to be modified to avoid its OWN bad outcomes, which would be 100% likely to happen if not fixed. Each unfixed system would have led to unwanted real world problems of various magnitudes (eg, a computer-controlled vault intended to be unlocked Monday through Friday would instead be unlocked Saturday through Wednesday until corrected, since 1/1/1900 was a Monday, but 1/1/2000 was a Saturday; or, someone born in 1935 and thus turning 65 during the year, would have been tagged in Social Security as -35 years old (or more likely the sign would be dropped), and thus not eligible for benefits until 2100!). To the extent that systems affect one another, more trouble would have been caused.
So unlike the “slippery slope” being wrong, and ignored, proving there WAS no problem, the Y2K was a REAL problem, and once publicized, organizations responsible for ignoring it until 1990 went into OVERDRIVE, hiring MILLIONS of extra programmers to fix it, coordinating their efforts with one another, and getting (most) of the design bugs fixed before 1/1/2000. And shortly afterwards, the excess programmers were let go. So the effort to fix Y2K MAY have been responsible for PART of the Dot-Com bubble which burst shortly after that date!
@Draghoul As someone who worked on that problem for one company, I can assure you that it was NOT very easily fixed. Professional computing involves retaining data over a very long period, and files on tape or DASD (disc) have fixed formats for dates, and often many different dates in one record. The company had to go through a step by step process, and discuss the changes to the format of records in each type of file. Then for each file type, modify each program that uses it, but don’t put into production YET. For each file type, write and test a ONE TIME program to read the file with 2-digit years, and reformat it with 4-digit years (and adopt a consistent rule that two-digit years below a certain number, eg 25, must be prefixed with 20, while years above that number must be
prefixed with 19). That one time conversion program must be run one time for EACH generation of that file, and the reformatted file must replace the formerly official file of that generation. And a date must be set for a huge work party to convert the whole shop at once. Then after doing that for the more recent generations, go back and convert the older file generations before monthly, quarterly, and annual jobs are run.
It WAS a big deal, partly because so many managers put it off till the last half year. I suspect that much of the employment boom in the nineties was not due to the “dot-com bubble” but to the need for crash conversion projects.
So no, it was NOT “blown out of proportion.” It was a very real problem, and the reason it did not “end the world” is that it WAS taken seriously, if only at the last minute, by most companies. The few who did not suffered financially, and some of them probably went bankrupt.
Something to ponder is how falsly accusing an argument the Slippery Slope fallacy can also be an issue. I've seen people with only a phantom of logical knowledge claim any argument that presents a likely solution is a slippery slope. There's a difference between saying (A will cause Z, 100%) and (A will likely cause B), especially if there's evidence of such a case.
Although I appreciate the point and the concept of slippery slopes, a situation like the Cold War and the Vietnam war are much easier judged in hindsight then in the heat of the moment.
It’s, of course, so much easier to judge Russian/Soviet communism 30 years later, compared to living in it at the time.
Agreed. Without hindsight the dominos were far more related especially when the communist leaders were open about their intentions.
One might assume that forestalling the fall to communism may have been the very thing that hastened its eventual collapse as well. An early fall to communism might have allowed the region more time to sort out what does and doesn't work. Communism would have spread further before the trade offs become more noticeable. Not to mention, carpet bombing a country for 20 years doesn't exactly set up a new government for success. China is still communist. Apparently if the entire industrialized world doesn't engage in a war , cold or hot , with a communist nation, it doesn't necessarily fail on its own merits.
Not true. Pretty much everyone warned the US to stay out of Vietnam.
There’s a reason why land wars in Asia never go well for Western powers.
Per Dan Olsen and Ian from innuendo studios' videos, often statements are made in bad faith, knowing the argument either holds no ground, or feature various logical fallacy. Some people support those points because of what those statements are meant to protect.
If they ever make another adaptation of I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, I nominate this voice actor to be the voice of AM.
Good story, that one
Here's a physics perspective on this: if you're comparing something to dominoes you may as well be admiting defeat. An upright domino is a metastable state, it wants to fall over and is only waiting for the slightest excuse to do so. Stopping the first domino will not stop the last one from falling when a light breeze could cause any domino in the chain to go off. In comparing the red scare to a series of dominoes, Mr Eisenhower is inadvertently implying that the whole world actually really wants to be communist and is just waiting for a slight disturbance to catalyze that change.
In poorly explaining a slippery slope he accidently disproved evolution.
It's astounding to me that America never accounts for the possibility that it might be the actual villain in theese stories!
You don't understand communism if you think America is the enemy
@@GabeMcCarthy182 i completely hate both of them
They have a weird hero complex. Though many countries like to see themselves as heros. It is a demagogic tool. But Western countries are usually a bit more self-critical especially with their history.
I love the sound effect that plays when he makes a portal
I covered this topic last year in my American history class and its always cool to see topics you know about get covered here
I don't think the slippery slope argument is completely wrong. It will have some applications, and honestly it wasn't wrong to try to contain communism to other countries, but the execution was often wrong (like in South America when CIA supported tyrants to combat communism and serve corporate interests). But Korea without US intervention would be completely horrible, and many other Asian countries were probably deterred from becoming communist out of a general fear of American intervention (e.g. the communist party in the Philippines never really took off). If we had just ignored the affairs of Asia, it would probably be communist by now, maybe even a Chinese USSR, with North Korea like dictators a standard place...
banning assault rifles will lead to banning hammers, so therefore assault rifles should never ever be banned
Gosh I've never clicked a video _that_ fast ! Whenever I see the demon of reason, I forget everything and just click
I love the Demon of Reason bits! The logic is exciting, and the voice acting and animation are spot on
Only Ted-Ed can make a complex lesson so fun!
It’s a slippery slope assuming one video will lead to everyone being better educated about fallacy…
2:07 me: you can do that? *in demon of reason voice* really?
I love that the Demon of Reason touches a bit on fearmongering and catastrophizing with this fallacy! Great work from the team :)
Except it's all propaganda and charisma. Most of the leaders in charge rarely believe these statements, but make them to increase patriotism among their own constituents. With the shortened time between events and reporting nowadays it's getting more creative.
"Don't worry, I may have that power, but I promise not to use it"
Me: 😳.... 😏
Good points, but I usually hear slippery slopes as "A is happening now people are arguing for B and C, and the fringe wants everything from D to G. G is catastrophic and is adjacent to the worse H. Should we stop at A, B, or C?"
I feel slippery slope gets misused often along that path. There's probably another fallacy at play. After some research Arguing from a Fallacy is also a fallacy.
The trick with slippery slope logic, is to show at least show 3 steps between them. By becoming a voice of reasoned warning, you become more convincing. As the end result is proven more likely, stronger action can be taken to prevent the ending.
And I see a fallacy in the 99% for each step from A to Z. Once each step is taken, the chance for Z to be reached increases. For simplicity: the chance to flip 2 tails is 25%, while the chance with the second will flip tails once the first is tails is 50%.
i always love this series! Hoping for more content with our demon of reason 💓
Nothing he says establishes that slippery slope arguments are fallacies. All he is saying, in effect, is that it is almost always the case that the outcome predicted by the slippery slope argument will usually not be inevitable. That does not matter, however, because for a slippery slope argument to be a good argument, it only has to be the case that the predicted outcome is reasonably probable relative to its likely costs or benefits. In point of fact, almost all arguments that turn on likely outcomes are, in effect, slippery slope arguments, or can readily be rephrased as them.
For example, you should not start smoking (event A), because if you start smoking, you will likely continue to smoke (event B), because tobacco is known to be habit-forming. If you continue to smoke, there is a good chance you will cause harmful mutations in the cells in your lungs (event C), because tobacco smoke contains multiple toxic mutagens. If harmful mutations occur in the cells in your lungs, you may contract lung cancer (event D), because mutations often lead to cancer. If you get lung cancer, you may die prematurely and in great pain (event E), because lung cancer is often fatal and usually causes terrible pain. So you should not start smoking. Of course, no one step in this argument is inevitable: not everyone who starts smoking continues to smoke, not everyone who continues smoking causes mutations in his lung cells, not every mutation leads to cancer, and not everyone who gets cancer dies of it. Does that mean the argument is wrong? Of course not. A slippery slope argument will not always be right, and, because no one knows the future, it will always be possible to debate just how likely one outcome or another might be, but just because a particular kind of argument is not right in every case does not mean that it is a fallacy. A fallacy is an argument whose form is inherently unsound; it will not produce a valid result even if its presuppositions are true. A slippery slope argument, by contrast, _will_ produce a valid result _if_ its presuppositions are true.
As for the specific argument about Vietnam, the fact that the worst-case scenario (or even just a worse-case scenario) did not occur does not mean that that was any more inevitable than the worst-case scenario itself was ever inevitable. It is quite possible, and I would submit highly likely, that the very fact that the US intervened to delay the fall of South Vietnam for as long as we did prevented the worst-case scenario from happening. Most of the other countries of Southeast Asia, including critically Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and especially Indonesia, used that time to defeat or suppress their own domestic Communist movements. In other words, the domino theory was likely a self-denying prophecy. The argument implied by the demon, that the actual outcome was inevitable and thus the costs paid to bring that outcome about were unnecessary, is itself the fallacy. Call it the post-hoc inevitability fallacy.
Please post more videos about
-Presocratic philosophers
-Islamic golden age (discoveries,achievements)
-Aristotle tutoring Alexander the Great
-Ottoman Empire astronomy (quran verses)
As master yoga put it “fear leads to anger, anger lead to hate and hate leads to the darkside”
The slippery slope logic can be used to debunk many conspiracy theories.
The vast majority of conspiracy theories are based on fallacies, the slippery slope being the most notable
best argument against climate change I have ever seen.
Ah, slippery slope. A fallacy until it isn’t.
The desperate rebuttal of one who's sole arguments are (unprovable) slippery slopes.
Love the fact that there are actually 26 dots at 3:00
I love that they’re doing more of these videos. I love the demon of reason
You're not experiencing what you're experiencing. Science says so.
I love these fallacy videos! Keep it up! Would love to learn more
It's important to keep in mind that this also applies to a POSITIVE scenario as well. Even if a utopia can be achieved, it's entirely possible a step will go wrong along the way and what may have once been considered to be the utopian dream can turn into a dystopian nightmare. This is true of EVERY form of government.
"Babe wake up, a new Demon of Reason video just dropped."
not my comment, somebody else posted it on a different demon video, i just thought it was funny.
The problem with his argument is that he acts as those things are random. They are not. Virtually every time I have heard people speak of the slippery slope, they are talking about human driven events. If a domino does not fall, the people who want Z to happen can either try again to make it fall or skip it and knock the next one down.
Politics on any scale is about people acting on other people, not people rolling dice
Exactly
Its normally cases like
"If we let the boss cut 10 cents of our wage soon he will be cutting a dollar"
Its usually just another way to say "give them an inch they will take a mile"
I'm going to beg to differ with this video for three reasons:
1. The Domino Theory never claimed that the whole world would fall to communism, rather that it could if nothing was done to prevent it. If I say that throwing a snowball on a mountain may cause an avalanche, I am not saying that it inevitably will. I am saying that there is a chance it may, and that we can reduce that chance by building dams or other safety structures, or by simply not throwing the snowball in the first place. Likewise, Domino Theory was a call to arms with the intent of preventing the spread of communism. Had the world done nothing, domino theory could very well have been fulfilled.
2. Domino Theory does not imply a single line of dominoes falling in a neat A-Z order as the video assumes. Dominoes often can be arranged so that one domino hits two or three others, splitting off into all kinds of different branches and patterns. The video said that "a web" was a better analogy, but there is not necessarily a contradiction between a web and a sprawling, branching set of dominos. The two need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, dominos are a better analogy overall because they imply causation, whereas a web does not. So, really, the Domino theory communicates better how the fall of Vietnam might cause the further spread of communism, which was Eisenhower's correct argument.
3. Domino Theory was based on started communist ideology and goals. Communism was never content with one or two countries. Rather, it required constant expansion in order to survive. The main point of Domino theory is that as communism expands, more people and resources come under its control, thereby making its further expansion easier. Like the Huns in ancient Asia, the further the conquest, the faster it accelerates. This is not a "slippery slope" argument, but rather a statement of the laws of synergy. Therefore, there is no fallacy in Domino Theory, just a warning bell to all nations based on correct interpretations of reality as it then was.
Very underrated comment.
Never make the mistake of confusing slippery slopes with deliberate policy decisions.
Is it a logical fallacy to presume someone is speaking in absolute terms when they've made no such guarantee? This is a problem I've observed, regularly, in people who dismiss an argument as a "slippery slope fallacy," simply because their opponent predicted an outcome based on current circumstances remaining constant.
I think a slippery slope is a conjecture, not a falacy.
I think the main issue is when someone only acknowledges one possible outcome for a series of events in their argument. A person may not SAY that their presented outcome is the only one that could happen, but a refusal to consider alternative outcomes may retroactively make one’s proposition fall into a slippery slope fallacy.
There are a few issues with the reasoning here.
First, it's called the slippery SLOPE, not the slippery CLIFF. The assumption of a slippery slope argument isn't that taking that first step means a certainty of the disastrous outcome occurring, but that it increases the odds of the disastrous outcome occurring... which is true. Vietnam's fall led to the fall of other nations, which brought the world more fully under the Communist umbrella, which reduced the number of steps between the current state of affairs and the undesirable outcome of global Communist domination, making the odds of the eventuality more likely. The fact that global Communist domination didn't happen doesn't mean that the fall of Vietnam was a positive event.
Second, the slippery slope is more often used as a way to describe human behavior than anything else, and it is a well-known fact of human psychology that enabling a singular event makes it easier for follow-up events to occur. A person who was not previously an addict to alcohol is significantly more likely to become a drunkard after they've drank their first glass. Since human civilization is made up of human beings, it is entirely possible for a culture to become more permissive of a particular type of event after the first event has been allowed. Some of these events and subsequent changes are good, undoubtedly, but there is no guarantee that every cultural change is good.
"The Human Brain Is Super Complex And Advanced''
- The Human Brain
What?
Remember "two weeks to flatten the curve" and tell me slippery slope isn't a thing.
reeesist!!!
"Hey guys if we don't take precautions to limit the spread of a virus, the virus will be worse" Is not a slippery slope fallacy
@@Kapoosh000 you're right. its just a false premise.
@@guillermoelnino ...So taking not precautions to limit a virus will NOT make it worse?
@@Kapoosh000 what you see as precaution i see as tyranny.
but this is way above your head anyway.
Slippery slope is not a fallacy. The idea that it was was only ever a way to gaslight people with capable pattern recognition skills.
damn straight
“the vaccine existing will lead to the 20th booster existing”
do you think this is true?
And we're seeing it today. The moral fabric of our civilization has been slowly corroded by malicious actors and their sheep. It wont stop. Zoo files are next they're already gaining acceptance
But, but, how are we to excuse wars without using flawed logic?
Yeah, it's more about finding an excuse for war than actually falling for a fallacy.
Midi music?
CIA : I propose false flag operations
To be fair hasn’t pretty much every recent slippery slope argument come true?
The most recent slippery slope argument I can think of is the claim that AI will gain sentience and use that sentience to exterminate humans. As much as this idea is stated by many, and as much as the thought freaks me out, it a huge slippery slope fallacy in reality.
True lamp bounce house
Can you provide an example?
@@osheridan requiring people to lock their car doors leads to requiring people to stay in their home and not be near any windows all the time unless directed otherwise
@@robertweltonsworldofanimat4525 y ou r underatanding of what a slipwry slope is implies imediate payoff and no intermediate benchmarks. It took 20 years to get from civil unions to le gali zing pe dop hilia, but we got here.
The problem with calling it a slippery slope fallacy is that well more than 50% the slope is slippery. Anything controversial is going to be introduced by first getting the camel’s nose under the tent.