Common Logical Fallacies (vi)

In this chapter we will address two other common informal fallacies, namely the "slippery slope" and the fallacious arguments made in the "if, then" format. 

Slippery Slope

Logically fallacious web page (See here) says this about the slippery slope fallacy (emphasis mine):

"Slippery Slope - (also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy)."

"Description: When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”

Logical Form: If A, then B, then C, ... then ultimately Z!"

It involves foretelling the perceived consequences of an action.

"Your Logical Fallacy" web page (See here) says the following (emphasis mine):

"You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen." 

"The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."

That is not to say that there are not real slippery slopes, cases where A does bring Z. But, to prove that such consequences or effects will come to pass if A occurs there must be evidence to prove that it will happen. A slippery slope fallacy often exaggerates the potential consequences of an action, making them seem much worse than they likely would be, whereas a real slippery slope acknowledges the potential for negative consequences while still maintaining a realistic assessment.

In other words, slippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you can demonstrate that the initial action has the likelihood that the adverse effects will come about. The fallacy occurs when you claim there's a slippery slope but then have no good reasons for such a forecasting of consequences.

Fallacious claims about X causing Y are prevalent everywhere in our world, including daily conversations with others, and certainly in political debates. 

The format of slippery slope arguments uses the "if, then" conditional sentence. Sometimes they state a truth, but other times they state an untruth. Oftentimes they involve mere speculation. Often people who argue with the "if, then" format should perhaps be careful and say "if A, then B might occur." The slippery slope argument appeals to the emotion of fear, as stated already. In the last election we heard people say that if Trump is elected, then a chain reaction will occur that will bring numerous serious ills. 

The best way to deal with unfounded and evidence lacking slippery slope arguments is 1) demand the evidence that proves that A will undoubtedly bring about B, or 2) show evidence or cases where A did not bring about B. 

Well said another source (See here - emphasis mine) under the heading "Impact and Consequences of the Slippery Slope Fallacy":

 

"The slippery slope argument is not always flawed, but when it is, it can be insidious. It is often used to promote fear and anxiety and to shut down more subtle arguments. As Etienne explains, “The fallacy is often used in fear-mongering attempts, as it often shuts down nuanced discussion by encouraging an all-or-nothing view of the phenomenon in question. It can, unfortunately, be used to justify restrictive policies and procedures.”

"If, Then..." Reasoning

"If-then arguments, also known as conditional arguments or hypothetical syllogisms, are a type of deductive argument that use an if-then statement as a premise. The if-then statement is a conditional statement that has the form "if P, then Q". The "if" part is called the antecedent, and the "then" part is called the consequent." (AI Overview)

The "if, then" statement of a proposition is called "conditional logics." Sometimes such argumentation is true, but often it is not. There are things that do happen and become a slippery slope. However, in many cases it is a case of slippery slope fallacy. So, when is it valid and when invalid?

"How they work" is like this:

"If-then arguments are a key part of deductive logic 

 

They are often used in everyday communication

The truth value of an if-then statement can be determined by considering the truth values of the hypothesis and conclusion

An if-then statement is false only when the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false."  (Ibid)

Under "Related concepts" we have these categories of the "if, then" argument:

Converse: If (q), then (p)

Inverse: If not (p), then not (q)

Contrapositive: If not (q), then not (p)

Necessary: If, and only if, (p), then (q). (Ibid)

Through the years I have had people argue against my views and used this fallacy. I also hear if often in political and theological debates. 

One additional thing we need to know about conditional sentences, in sentences where we see the "if, then" format. There are four kinds of conditionals in the Greek new testament. Here is what I wrote about this years ago (See here).

"...conditional statements, with a protasis and apodosis (if, then), are in either one of four categories.  From the web page ntgreek.org, these are delineated as follows (See here):

First Class Condition - Is considered the 'Simple Condition' and assumes that the premise (protasis) is true for the sake of argument. The protasis is formed with the helping word ei ('if') with the main verb in the indicative mood, in any tense; with any mood and tense in the apodosis.

Second Class Condition - Is known as the 'Contrary-to-Fact Condition' and assumes the premise as false for the sake of argument. The protasis is again formed with the helping word ei ('if') and the main verb in the indicative mood. The tense of the verb (in the protasis) must also be in a past-time tense (aorist or imperfect). The apodosis will usually have the particle an as a marking word, showing some contingency.

Third Class Condition - Traditionally known as the 'More Probable Future Condition', the third class condition should actually be split into two different categories, the 'Future More Probable Condition' (indicating either a probable future action or a hypothetical situation) and the 'Present General Condition' (indicating a generic situation or universal truth at the present time). It is formed in the protasis using the word ean (ei plus an = 'if') and a verb in the subjunctive mood. The main verb of the protasis can be in any tense, but if the condition is a 'Present General', the verb must be in the present tense.

Fourth Class Condition - Is usually called the 'Less Probable Future Condition' and does not have a complete example in the New Testament. The fulfillment of this condition was considered even more remote than the Third Class Condition. It was formed with the helping word ei and the optative mood in the protasis. The apodosis had the helping word an and its verb was also in the optative mood.

Ignorance of these facts has probably helped to cause today's Hardshells not to understand what Bunyan, Keach, and Hassell understood about the various connotations and denotations attached to the word "conditional."  A condition, most often in scripture, simply denotes a connection between one thing and another, and says nothing about the nature and causes of the condition.  Thus, to say that faith is a condition for salvation simply says that faith precedes salvation by way of connection.  In itself it does not affirm that the condition existed because of the free will and effort of those who have faith.  The condition for salvation is faith, but faith itself is conditioned upon the sovereign and efficacious work of God.  So, though salvation depends upon faith, faith depends upon the will and working of God." 

Martyn McGeown of "Reformed Publishing" writes an article titled "Our Rejection of Conditions (5): Conditional Grammar in the Bible" (See here) and says the following (emphasis mine:

"In an earlier blog post I wrote that at its most basic a condition reflects a relationship of necessity between two or more things. In English we often express such a relationship of necessity with words such as “only if,” “provided that,” “except that,” “without,” “only after,” “always before,” and the like. In this blog post I want to look at conditional grammar in God’s Word. Although the Bible never uses the word “condition” or “prerequisite,” it contains conditional sentences, that is, grammatical constructions with words such as “if,” “unless,” “except,” etc. Every seminarian remembers learning about different kinds of conditional sentences in Greek grammar class: first, second, third, and fourth class conditions."

"Some conditional sentences use “if clauses” (the technical term is protasis) to state a fact. “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above” (Col. 3:1) could be rendered “Since you are risen with Christ” because the “if clause” expresses what is true. Other first class conditions affirm something to be true, but only for the sake of argument: “If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised” (1 Cor. 15:16). If, for the sake of granting the premise of the adversary with whom the apostle is arguing, the dead do not rise (and they do), then, it logically follows, if the argument is correct (and it is not), that Christ also did not rise from the dead (but he did)."

What some bible students do not understand is that "if" statements in regard to conditions for salvation do not exclude the fact that the "if" (protasis) can itself have been a "then." For example, in the sentence "if you believe, then you will be saved" does not exclude prior conditions for one becoming a believer. This being so we may read a longer version of the same and say: "if God give you faith, then you will believe, and if you believe you will be saved." Or, if we say "if domino number three is pushed over, then domino number four will be pushed over," we cannot conclude that there was no prior condition before the "if," which is that domino number two pushed domino number three. 

There is nothing wrong with making "if, then" arguments. The bible is full of them. It is only when there is no proof or evidence that the presumed consequences or effects of an "if" condition will come to pass that it becomes a slippery slope fallacy.