44:
424:
action and it "conveys the impression of a slower 'step-by-step' process where the decision maker as participant slides inexorably downwards under the weight of its own successive (erroneous) decisions". Despite these differences
Saliger continues to treat the two metaphors as being synonymous. Walton argues that although the two are comparable "the metaphor of the dam bursting carries with it no essential element of a sequence of steps from an initial action through a gray zone with its accompanying loss of control eventuated in the ultimate outcome of the ruinous disaster. For these reasons, it seems best to propose drawing a distinction between dam burst arguments and slippery slope arguments."
2567:
484:
Given the disagreement over what constitutes a genuine slippery slope argument, it is to be expected that there are differences in the way they are defined. Lode says that "although all SSAs share certain features, they are a family of related arguments rather than a class of arguments whose members
358:
Sidgwick says this is "popularly known as the objection to a thin end of a wedge" but might be classified now as a decisional slippery slope. However, the wedge metaphor also captures the idea that unpleasant end result is a wider application of a principle associated with the initial decision which
283:
Decisional slippery slopes are similar to conceptual slippery slopes in that they rely on there being a continuum with no clear dividing lines such that if you decide to accept one position or course of action then there will, either now or in the future, be no rational grounds for not accepting the
423:
In exploring the differences between the two metaphors, he comments that in the dam burst the initial action is clearly in the foreground and there is a rapid movement towards the resulting events whereas in the slippery slope metaphor the downward slide has at least equal prominence to the initial
386:
While this image may be insightful for understanding the character of the fallacy, it represents a misunderstanding of the nature of the causal relations between events. Every causal claim requires a separate argument. Hence, any "slipping" to be found is only in the clumsy thinking of the arguer,
353:
We must not do this or that, it is often said, because if we did we should be logically bound to do something else which is plainly absurd or wrong. If we once begin to take a certain course there is no knowing where we shall be able to stop within any show of consistency; there would be no reason
497:
Those who hold that slippery slopes are causal generally give a simple definition, provide some appropriate examples and perhaps add some discussion as to the difficulty of determining whether the argument is reasonable or fallacious. Most of the more detailed analysis of slippery slopes has been
287:
The difficulty in classifying slippery slope arguments is that there is no clear consensus in the literature as to how terminology should be used. It has been said that whilst these two fallacies "have a relationship which may justify treating them together", they are also distinct, and "the fact
566:
One is a first step, an action or policy being considered. A second is a sequence in which this action leads to other actions. A third is a so-called gray zone or area of indeterminacy along the sequence where the agent loses control. The fourth is the catastrophic outcome at the very end of the
419:
seems to predominate, in
English speaking circles talk is more of the slippery slope argument", and that "in German writing dam burst and slippery slope arguments are treated as broadly synonymous. In particular the structural analyses of slippery slope arguments derived from English writing are
313:
says that an essential feature of slippery slopes is a "loss of control" and this only fits with the decisional type of slippery slope. He says that, "The domino argument has a sequence of events in which each one in the sequence causes the next one to happen in such a manner that once the first
248:
with the idea being that the 'slope' does not consist of a series of events but is such that, for whatever reason, if a person makes one particular judgment they will rationally have to make another and so on. The judgmental type may be further sub-divided into conceptual slippery slopes and
211:
is typically a negative argument where there is an attempt to discourage someone from taking a course of action because if they do it will lead to some unacceptable conclusion. Some writers point out that an argument with the same structure might be used in a positive way in which someone is
567:
sequence. The idea is that as soon as the agent in question takes the first step he will be impelled forward through the sequence, losing control so that in the end he will reach the catastrophic outcome. Not all of these components are typically made explicit ...."
532:
Walton notes that these three features will be common to all slippery slopes but objects that there needs to be more clarity on the nature of the 'mechanism' and a way of distinguishing between slippery slope arguments and arguments from negative consequences.
59:, a course of action is rejected because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in
493:
says, "I think the most useful definition of a slippery slope is one that covers all situations where decision A, which you might find appealing, ends up materially increasing the probability that others will bring about decision B, which you oppose."
517:
Rizzo and
Whitman identify slightly different features. They say, "Although there is no paradigm case of the slippery slope argument, there are characteristic features of all such arguments. The key components of slippery slope arguments are three:
299:
gives a definition that only fits the causal type. He says: "Slippery Slope reasoning is a type of negative reasoning from consequences, distinguished by the presence of a causal chain leading from the proposed action to the negative
314:
event occurs it will lead to the next event, and so forth, until the last event in the sequence finally occurs…(and)…is clearly different from the slippery slope argument, but can be seen as a part of it, and closely related to it."
239:
Different writers have classified slippery slope arguments in different and often contradictory ways, but there are two basic types of argument that have been described as slippery slope arguments. One type has been called
488:
Various writers have attempted to produce a general taxonomy of these different kinds of slippery slope. Other writers have given a general definition that will encompass the diversity of slippery slope arguments.
74:
in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. When the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects, this is called the
244:, and the distinguishing feature of this type is that the various steps leading from p to z are events with each event being the cause of the next in the sequence. The second type might be called
436:"Commentators have used numerous different metaphors to refer to arguments that have this rough form. For example, people have called such arguments "wedge" or "thin edge of the wedge", "
188:. Some writers point out that strict necessity isn't required and it can still be characterized as a slippery slope if at each stage the next step is plausible. With strict implication,
528:
A "process" or "mechanism" by which accepting the initial argument and making the initial decision raise the likelihood of accepting the later argument and making the later decision."
349:
Walton suggests Alfred
Sidgwick should be credited as the first writer on informal logic to describe what would today be called a slippery slope argument. Sidgwick wrote in 1910:
87:, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Other idioms for the slippery slope fallacy are the
501:
Lode, having claimed that SSAs are not a single class of arguments whose members all share the same form, nevertheless goes on to suggest the following common features.
227:, for whatever reason, this is not the case. In logic and critical thinking textbooks, slippery slopes and slippery slope arguments are normally discussed as a form of
1684:
555:
The alleged danger lurking on the slippery slope is the fear that a presently unacceptable proposal (C) will (by any number of psychological processes—see, e.g.,
63:. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the
1689:
276:
that incest is not immoral, on the grounds that 'touching your mother's big toe with your little finger is not immoral, and all the rest differs only by degree.
387:
who has failed to provide sufficient evidence that one causally explained event can serve as an explanation for another event or for a series of events.
354:
for stopping anywhere in particular, and we should be led on, step by step into action or opinions that we all agree to call undesirable or untrue.
2611:
452:" arguments. All of these metaphors suggest that allowing one practice or policy could lead us to allow a series of other practices or policies."
292:
to refer to one kind of argument but not the other, but don't agree on which one, whilst others use the term to refer to both. So, for example:
264:. So, in the context of talking about slippery slopes, Merilee Salmon writes: "The slippery slope is an ancient form of reasoning. According to
2596:
1461:
1401:
1288:
1195:
1148:
1073:
1045:
1017:
986:
874:
791:
760:
2067:
459:
says it is lawyers who often call it the "parade of horribles" argument while politicians seem to favor "the camel's nose is in the tent".
2616:
1724:
1566:
219:
of using a slippery slope argument then it is being suggested they are guilty of fallacious reasoning, and while they are claiming that
288:
that they share a name is unfortunate". Some writers treat them side by side but emphasize how they differ. Some writers use the term
1878:
608:
407:
becoming involved in the war in
Vietnam and although the U.S. lost that war, "it is primarily communist dominoes that have fallen".
359:
is often a feature of decisional slippery slopes due to their incremental nature but may be absent from causal slippery slopes.
303:
Merrilee Salmon describes the fallacy as a failure to recognise that meaningful distinctions can be drawn and even casts the "
2591:
2486:
1694:
196:, but if at each step the probability is 90%, for example, then the more steps there are, the less likely it becomes that
2606:
2522:
2498:
2087:
464:
2099:
1843:
1244:
685:
2109:
1221:
618:
378:
2601:
2517:
2074:
1970:
1522:
Corner, Adam; Hahn, Ulrike; Oaksford, Mike (2011). "The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument".
1211:
103:, and various other terms that are sometimes considered distinct argument types or reasoning flaws, such as the
2512:
2352:
1820:
1656:
1612:
2532:
2347:
1863:
1559:
633:
562:
Walton adds the requirement that there must be a loss of control. He says, there are four basic components:
60:
2454:
2444:
2394:
2368:
2144:
2018:
1985:
1886:
1868:
1768:
1617:
1599:
1089:
Pattinson, Shaun D. (2000). "Regulating Germ-Line Gene
Therapy to avoid Sliding down the Slippery Slope".
693:
660:
650:
341:: "Affairs soon move on, for they glide readily down the path of ruin when once they have taken a start."
2492:
2480:
2460:
2449:
2364:
2177:
2153:
1975:
1931:
1783:
1709:
1622:
593:
578:
334:
2507:
2411:
2375:
2290:
2246:
2082:
2013:
1803:
1632:
1607:
1280:
1009:
1003:
644:
469:
399:
suggests that the domino variation of the fallacy has gone out of fashion because it was tied to the
231:, although there may be an acknowledgement that non-fallacious forms of the argument can also exist.
2385:
2284:
2231:
2207:
2130:
2033:
1965:
1891:
1704:
1699:
1676:
1651:
779:
623:
613:
441:
329:
296:
112:
2570:
2503:
2317:
2202:
2187:
2134:
2094:
2043:
1980:
1939:
1916:
1896:
1799:
1643:
1627:
1552:
1504:
1434:
1374:
1114:
665:
603:
64:
31:
1351:
1250:
866:
860:
2389:
2226:
2216:
2192:
2169:
2125:
2051:
2003:
1961:
1921:
1763:
1758:
1580:
1457:
1397:
1325:
1284:
1215:
1191:
1169:
1144:
1106:
1069:
1041:
1013:
982:
927:
923:
897:
870:
841:
833:
787:
756:
310:
84:
43:
978:
971:
2539:
2380:
2279:
2221:
2159:
1954:
1833:
1828:
1813:
1778:
1738:
1666:
1661:
1531:
1496:
1426:
1366:
1181:
1098:
913:
823:
598:
588:
273:
265:
80:
808:
2260:
2236:
2056:
2028:
2008:
1856:
1824:
1808:
1177:
655:
449:
373:
261:
124:
48:
2296:
1773:
437:
337:
uses the metaphor to describe the decline of the
Republic upon the impending election of
105:
47:
This 1895 cartoon makes a slippery-slope argument of how weddings would look in 2001 if
2197:
2182:
1949:
1589:
1310:
1140:
628:
338:
35:
17:
2585:
2322:
2212:
1944:
1907:
1851:
1719:
1714:
1477:
1438:
490:
404:
400:
396:
368:
304:
96:
71:
67:(in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect).
1118:
2334:
1753:
1430:
583:
473:
456:
445:
253:
118:
1186:
2527:
2304:
2241:
721:
498:
done by those who hold that genuine slippery slopes are of the decisional kind.
1102:
547:
The belief that allowing (A) will lead to a re-evaluation of (C) in the future.
2437:
2431:
2358:
2270:
1535:
1481:
828:
212:
encouraged to take the first step because it leads to a desirable conclusion.
1329:
1311:"The dam burst and slippery slope argument in medical law and medical ethics"
837:
512:
The idea that the practice under consideration is, in itself, unobjectionable
415:
Frank
Saliger notes that "in the German-speaking world the dramatic image of
2544:
2328:
2312:
1995:
944:
638:
525:
A "danger case"—a later argument and decision that are clearly unacceptable;
476:
popularized the general idea of the slippery slope for recent generations.
2474:
1110:
918:
901:
845:
1544:
2422:
1576:
1508:
1378:
1277:
Attacking faulty reasoning: A practical guide to fallacy-free arguments
722:"The camel's nose is in the tent: rules, theories, and slippery slopes"
536:
Corner et al. say that a slippery slope has "four distinct components:
1417:
Govier, Trudy (1982). "What's wrong with slippery slope arguments?".
862:
Good reasoning matters!: a constructive approach to critical thinking
382:, describes what others might call a causal slippery slope but says:
324:
1500:
1370:
753:
The art of reasoning: an introduction to logic and critical thinking
973:
Logic and contemporary rhetoric: the use of reason in everyday life
807:
Haigh, Matthew; Wood, Jeffrey S.; Stewart, Andrew J. (July 2016).
148:
can be represented by a series of conditional statements, namely:
42:
30:
This article is about the rhetorical argument. For the novel, see
755:(4th ed.). New York London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
1008:. New York: International Debate Education Association. p.
715:
713:
711:
1548:
1068:. Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt College Publishers. p. 358.
1456:. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
509:
The idea that the slope lacks a non-arbitrary stopping place
323:
The metaphor of the "slippery slope" dates back at least to
180:
The idea being that through a series of intermediate steps,
977:. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. p.
1066:
Understanding
Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic
420:
largely transferred directly to the dam burst argument."
440:" or "camel's nose in the tent", "parade of horrors" or "
522:
An initial, seemingly acceptable argument and decision;
1059:
1057:
865:. Toronto New York: Oxford University Press. p.
809:"Slippery slope arguments imply opposition to change"
70:
This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of
1130:
1128:
2421:
2409:
2268:
2259:
2168:
2143:
2118:
2042:
1994:
1930:
1905:
1877:
1842:
1792:
1746:
1737:
1675:
1641:
1597:
1588:
939:
937:
284:next position or course of action in the sequence.
1318:Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik
970:
786:. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press.
136:Some writers distinguish between a slippery slope
559:) in the future be re-evaluated as acceptable."
1304:
1302:
1300:
1172:(2016). "Slippery Slope". In Have, Henk (ed.).
564:
434:
384:
351:
1685:Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
1352:"Slippery slope arguments and legal reasoning"
1164:
1162:
1160:
1031:
1029:
774:
772:
1690:Negative conclusion from affirmative premises
1560:
1270:
1268:
892:
890:
888:
886:
480:Defining features of slippery slope arguments
8:
1345:
1343:
1341:
1339:
1137:Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
506:The series of intervening and gradual steps
2418:
2265:
2140:
1743:
1594:
1567:
1553:
1545:
1396:. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
550:The rejection of (A) based on this belief.
1185:
1040:. Belmont, California: Cengage Learning.
917:
827:
1394:Critical thinking: consider the verdict
720:Rizzo, Mario; Whitman, Douglas (2003).
677:
1482:"The mechanisms of the slippery slope"
1217:M. Tulli Ciceronis Laelius de amicitia
556:
462:The 1985 best-selling children's book
391:Instead Damer prefers to call it the
7:
258:the fallacy of slippery assimilation
902:"The basic slippery slope argument"
252:Conceptual slippery slopes, which
25:
1143:College Publishers. p. 128.
945:"Logical fallacy: slippery slope"
609:Euthanasia and the slippery slope
2566:
2565:
1174:Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
784:Fallacies and argument appraisal
132:Slopes, arguments, and fallacies
333:(XII.41). The title character
2612:Legal doctrines and principles
2063:Correlation implies causation
1524:Journal of Memory and Language
1431:10.1080/00455091.1982.10715799
1419:Canadian Journal of Philosophy
1:
2597:Metaphors referring to places
1187:10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_394
1038:A practical study of argument
319:Metaphor and its alternatives
260:, are closely related to the
246:the judgmental slippery slope
1135:Salmon, Merrilee H. (1995).
692:. Department of Philosophy,
465:If You Give a Mouse a Cookie
272:), the argument is found in
249:decisional slippery slopes.
544:An undesirable outcome (C).
49:women got the right to vote
2633:
2617:American legal terminology
2487:I'm entitled to my opinion
1222:Cambridge University Press
1103:10.1177/096853320000400404
619:Foot-in-the-door technique
485:all share the same form."
379:Attacking Faulty Reasoning
366:
29:
2561:
2470:
2343:
1536:10.1016/j.jml.2010.10.002
1275:Damer, T. Edward (1995).
1243:Sidgwick, Alfred (1910).
1091:Medical Law International
829:10.3758/s13421-016-0596-9
242:the causal slippery slope
2513:Motte-and-bailey fallacy
1613:Affirming the consequent
1454:Slippery slope arguments
1452:Walton, Douglas (1992).
1246:The Application of Logic
1064:Fogelin, Robert (2001).
541:An initial proposal (A).
2533:Two wrongs make a right
1864:Denying the correlative
1309:Saliger, Frank (2007).
1279:. Belmont, California:
1002:Johnson, Ralph (2006).
969:Kahane, Howard (2001).
634:Precautionary principle
61:unintended consequences
57:slippery slope argument
2518:Psychologist's fallacy
2455:Argument to moderation
2445:Argument from anecdote
2395:Chronological snobbery
2019:Quoting out of context
1986:Overwhelming exception
1869:Suppressed correlative
1769:Quoting out of context
1644:quantificational logic
1618:Denying the antecedent
1392:Waller, Bruce (1998).
1180:. pp. 2623–2632.
1036:Govier, Trudy (2010).
919:10.22329/il.v35i3.4286
816:Memory & Cognition
751:Kelley, David (2014).
694:Texas State University
661:Splitting (psychology)
651:Salami slicing tactics
569:
454:
432:Eric Lode notes that:
389:
356:
89:thin edge of the wedge
77:slippery slope fallacy
52:
18:Slippery slope fallacy
2592:Rhetorical techniques
2481:The Four Great Errors
2461:Argumentum ad populum
2450:Argument from silence
2154:Argumentum ad baculum
1932:Faulty generalization
1623:Argument from fallacy
1359:California Law Review
859:Groarke, Leo (1997).
594:Broken windows theory
579:Appeal to probability
335:Gaius Laelius Sapiens
140:and a slippery slope
83:, and is a subset of
46:
2499:Invincible ignorance
2305:Reductio ad Stalinum
2291:Reductio ad Hitlerum
2247:Wisdom of repugnance
2014:Moving the goalposts
1879:Illicit transference
1804:Begging the question
1725:Undistributed middle
1633:Mathematical fallacy
1608:Affirming a disjunct
1281:Wadsworth Publishing
1005:Logical self-defense
780:Tindale, Christopher
645:Reductio ad absurdum
470:Laura Joffe Numeroff
270:The Scientific Image
79:. This is a type of
34:. For the film, see
2607:Inductive fallacies
2232:Parade of horribles
2208:In-group favoritism
2034:Syntactic ambiguity
1677:Syllogistic fallacy
1600:propositional logic
1350:Lode, Eric (1999).
1251:Macmillan & Co.
624:Gateway drug theory
614:First they came ...
450:this could snowball
442:parade of horribles
345:Thin end of a wedge
330:Laelius de Amicitia
297:Christopher Tindale
144:. A slippery slope
113:parade of horribles
27:Rhetorical argument
2318:Poisoning the well
2135:Proof by assertion
2110:Texas sharpshooter
2044:Questionable cause
1981:Slothful induction
1940:Anecdotal evidence
1800:Circular reasoning
1695:Exclusive premises
1657:Illicit conversion
1489:Harvard Law Review
1365:(6/3): 1469–1543.
1170:Walton, Douglas N.
898:Walton, Douglas N.
666:Trivial objections
604:Creeping normality
53:
32:The Slippery Slope
2579:
2578:
2557:
2556:
2553:
2552:
2493:Ignoratio elenchi
2405:
2404:
2255:
2254:
2217:Not invented here
1922:Converse accident
1844:Correlative-based
1821:Compound question
1764:False attribution
1759:False equivalence
1733:
1732:
1480:(February 2003).
1463:978-0-19-823925-3
1403:978-0-13-744368-0
1290:978-0-534-21750-1
1197:978-3-319-09482-3
1150:978-0-15-543064-8
1075:978-0-15-507548-1
1047:978-0-495-60340-5
1019:978-1-932716-18-4
988:978-0-534-53578-0
949:The Fallacy Files
876:978-0-19-541225-3
793:978-0-521-60306-5
762:978-0-393-93078-8
696:. 11 January 2016
311:Douglas N. Walton
235:Types of argument
207:A slippery slope
85:continuum fallacy
16:(Redirected from
2624:
2602:Causal fallacies
2569:
2568:
2540:Special pleading
2419:
2280:Appeal to motive
2266:
2242:Stirring symbols
2222:Island mentality
2160:Wishful thinking
2141:
1857:Perfect solution
1834:No true Scotsman
1829:Complex question
1814:Leading question
1793:Question-begging
1779:No true Scotsman
1744:
1667:Quantifier shift
1662:Proof by example
1595:
1569:
1562:
1555:
1546:
1540:
1539:
1519:
1513:
1512:
1495:(4): 1026–1137.
1486:
1474:
1468:
1467:
1449:
1443:
1442:
1414:
1408:
1407:
1389:
1383:
1382:
1356:
1347:
1334:
1333:
1315:
1306:
1295:
1294:
1272:
1263:
1262:
1260:
1258:
1240:
1234:
1233:
1231:
1229:
1208:
1202:
1201:
1189:
1166:
1155:
1154:
1132:
1123:
1122:
1097:(3–4): 213–222.
1086:
1080:
1079:
1061:
1052:
1051:
1033:
1024:
1023:
999:
993:
992:
976:
966:
960:
959:
957:
955:
941:
932:
931:
921:
894:
881:
880:
856:
850:
849:
831:
813:
804:
798:
797:
776:
767:
766:
748:
742:
741:
739:
737:
717:
706:
705:
703:
701:
686:"Slippery Slope"
682:
599:Butterfly effect
589:Broccoli mandate
307:" in that light.
279:
274:Sextus Empiricus
177:
81:informal fallacy
21:
2632:
2631:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2575:
2549:
2523:Rationalization
2466:
2413:
2401:
2339:
2261:Genetic fallacy
2251:
2164:
2139:
2114:
2038:
2029:Sorites paradox
2009:False precision
1990:
1971:Double counting
1926:
1901:
1873:
1838:
1825:Loaded question
1809:Loaded language
1788:
1729:
1671:
1637:
1584:
1573:
1543:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1501:10.2307/1342743
1484:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1464:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1404:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1371:10.2307/3481050
1354:
1349:
1348:
1337:
1313:
1308:
1307:
1298:
1291:
1274:
1273:
1266:
1256:
1254:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1227:
1225:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1198:
1178:Springer Nature
1168:
1167:
1158:
1151:
1134:
1133:
1126:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1076:
1063:
1062:
1055:
1048:
1035:
1034:
1027:
1020:
1001:
1000:
996:
989:
968:
967:
963:
953:
951:
943:
942:
935:
896:
895:
884:
877:
858:
857:
853:
811:
806:
805:
801:
794:
778:
777:
770:
763:
750:
749:
745:
735:
733:
726:UCLA Law Review
719:
718:
709:
699:
697:
684:
683:
679:
675:
670:
656:Snowball effect
574:
553:
515:
482:
430:
428:Other metaphors
413:
374:T. Edward Damer
371:
365:
347:
321:
277:
262:sorites paradox
237:
226:
222:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
178:
175:
171:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
134:
125:snowball effect
39:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2630:
2628:
2620:
2619:
2614:
2609:
2604:
2599:
2594:
2584:
2583:
2577:
2576:
2574:
2573:
2562:
2559:
2558:
2555:
2554:
2551:
2550:
2548:
2547:
2542:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2525:
2520:
2515:
2510:
2501:
2496:
2489:
2484:
2477:
2471:
2468:
2467:
2465:
2464:
2457:
2452:
2447:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2427:
2425:
2416:
2407:
2406:
2403:
2402:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2383:
2378:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2362:
2355:
2353:Accomplishment
2344:
2341:
2340:
2338:
2337:
2332:
2325:
2320:
2315:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2282:
2276:
2274:
2263:
2257:
2256:
2253:
2252:
2250:
2249:
2244:
2239:
2234:
2229:
2224:
2219:
2210:
2205:
2200:
2195:
2190:
2185:
2180:
2174:
2172:
2166:
2165:
2163:
2162:
2157:
2149:
2147:
2138:
2137:
2128:
2122:
2120:
2116:
2115:
2113:
2112:
2107:
2105:Slippery slope
2102:
2097:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2071:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2048:
2046:
2040:
2039:
2037:
2036:
2031:
2026:
2024:Slippery slope
2021:
2016:
2011:
2006:
2000:
1998:
1992:
1991:
1989:
1988:
1983:
1978:
1973:
1968:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1952:
1950:Cherry picking
1942:
1936:
1934:
1928:
1927:
1925:
1924:
1919:
1913:
1911:
1903:
1902:
1900:
1899:
1894:
1889:
1883:
1881:
1875:
1874:
1872:
1871:
1866:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1848:
1846:
1840:
1839:
1837:
1836:
1831:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1806:
1796:
1794:
1790:
1789:
1787:
1786:
1781:
1776:
1771:
1766:
1761:
1756:
1750:
1748:
1741:
1735:
1734:
1731:
1730:
1728:
1727:
1722:
1717:
1712:
1707:
1702:
1697:
1692:
1687:
1681:
1679:
1673:
1672:
1670:
1669:
1664:
1659:
1654:
1648:
1646:
1639:
1638:
1636:
1635:
1630:
1625:
1620:
1615:
1610:
1604:
1602:
1592:
1586:
1585:
1574:
1572:
1571:
1564:
1557:
1549:
1542:
1541:
1530:(2): 133–152.
1514:
1478:Volokh, Eugene
1469:
1462:
1444:
1425:(2): 303–316.
1409:
1402:
1384:
1335:
1296:
1289:
1264:
1235:
1212:Reid, James S.
1203:
1196:
1156:
1149:
1141:Harcourt Brace
1139:. Fort Worth:
1124:
1081:
1074:
1053:
1046:
1025:
1018:
994:
987:
961:
933:
906:Informal Logic
882:
875:
851:
822:(5): 819–836.
799:
792:
768:
761:
743:
707:
676:
674:
671:
669:
668:
663:
658:
653:
648:
641:
636:
631:
629:Overton window
626:
621:
616:
611:
606:
601:
596:
591:
586:
581:
575:
573:
570:
552:
551:
548:
545:
542:
538:
530:
529:
526:
523:
514:
513:
510:
507:
503:
481:
478:
444:", "domino", "
429:
426:
412:
409:
393:domino fallacy
376:, in his book
367:Main article:
364:
363:Domino fallacy
361:
346:
343:
339:Gaius Gracchus
320:
317:
316:
315:
308:
301:
290:slippery slope
236:
233:
230:
224:
220:
218:
215:If someone is
210:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
173:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
150:
147:
143:
139:
133:
130:
95:(as a form of
93:domino fallacy
36:Slippery Slope
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2629:
2618:
2615:
2613:
2610:
2608:
2605:
2603:
2600:
2598:
2595:
2593:
2590:
2589:
2587:
2572:
2564:
2563:
2560:
2546:
2543:
2541:
2538:
2534:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2526:
2524:
2521:
2519:
2516:
2514:
2511:
2509:
2505:
2502:
2500:
2497:
2495:
2494:
2490:
2488:
2485:
2483:
2482:
2478:
2476:
2473:
2472:
2469:
2463:
2462:
2458:
2456:
2453:
2451:
2448:
2446:
2443:
2439:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2429:
2428:
2426:
2424:
2420:
2417:
2415:
2408:
2396:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2387:
2384:
2382:
2379:
2377:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2363:
2361:
2360:
2356:
2354:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2346:
2345:
2342:
2336:
2333:
2331:
2330:
2326:
2324:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2314:
2311:
2307:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2283:
2281:
2278:
2277:
2275:
2273:
2272:
2267:
2264:
2262:
2258:
2248:
2245:
2243:
2240:
2238:
2235:
2233:
2230:
2228:
2225:
2223:
2220:
2218:
2214:
2213:Invented here
2211:
2209:
2206:
2204:
2201:
2199:
2196:
2194:
2191:
2189:
2186:
2184:
2181:
2179:
2176:
2175:
2173:
2171:
2167:
2161:
2158:
2156:
2155:
2151:
2150:
2148:
2146:
2142:
2136:
2132:
2129:
2127:
2124:
2123:
2121:
2117:
2111:
2108:
2106:
2103:
2101:
2098:
2096:
2093:
2089:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2081:
2077:
2076:
2072:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2064:
2062:
2058:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2050:
2049:
2047:
2045:
2041:
2035:
2032:
2030:
2027:
2025:
2022:
2020:
2017:
2015:
2012:
2010:
2007:
2005:
2002:
2001:
1999:
1997:
1993:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1979:
1977:
1976:False analogy
1974:
1972:
1969:
1967:
1963:
1960:
1956:
1953:
1951:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:Sampling bias
1943:
1941:
1938:
1937:
1935:
1933:
1929:
1923:
1920:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1912:
1910:
1909:
1908:Secundum quid
1904:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1890:
1888:
1885:
1884:
1882:
1880:
1876:
1870:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1858:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:False dilemma
1850:
1849:
1847:
1845:
1841:
1835:
1832:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1819:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1807:
1805:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1795:
1791:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1777:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1762:
1760:
1757:
1755:
1752:
1751:
1749:
1745:
1742:
1740:
1736:
1726:
1723:
1721:
1720:Illicit minor
1718:
1716:
1715:Illicit major
1713:
1711:
1708:
1706:
1703:
1701:
1698:
1696:
1693:
1691:
1688:
1686:
1683:
1682:
1680:
1678:
1674:
1668:
1665:
1663:
1660:
1658:
1655:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1647:
1645:
1640:
1634:
1631:
1629:
1626:
1624:
1621:
1619:
1616:
1614:
1611:
1609:
1606:
1605:
1603:
1601:
1596:
1593:
1591:
1587:
1582:
1578:
1570:
1565:
1563:
1558:
1556:
1551:
1550:
1547:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1518:
1515:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1483:
1479:
1473:
1470:
1465:
1459:
1455:
1448:
1445:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1413:
1410:
1405:
1399:
1395:
1388:
1385:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1353:
1346:
1344:
1342:
1340:
1336:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1312:
1305:
1303:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1271:
1269:
1265:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1239:
1236:
1224:. p. 109
1223:
1219:
1218:
1213:
1207:
1204:
1199:
1193:
1188:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1165:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1085:
1082:
1077:
1071:
1067:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1043:
1039:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1021:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:
998:
995:
990:
984:
980:
975:
974:
965:
962:
950:
946:
940:
938:
934:
929:
925:
920:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
893:
891:
889:
887:
883:
878:
872:
868:
864:
863:
855:
852:
847:
843:
839:
835:
830:
825:
821:
817:
810:
803:
800:
795:
789:
785:
781:
775:
773:
769:
764:
758:
754:
747:
744:
731:
727:
723:
716:
714:
712:
708:
695:
691:
687:
681:
678:
672:
667:
664:
662:
659:
657:
654:
652:
649:
647:
646:
642:
640:
637:
635:
632:
630:
627:
625:
622:
620:
617:
615:
612:
610:
607:
605:
602:
600:
597:
595:
592:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
576:
571:
568:
563:
560:
558:
549:
546:
543:
540:
539:
537:
534:
527:
524:
521:
520:
519:
511:
508:
505:
504:
502:
499:
495:
492:
491:Eugene Volokh
486:
479:
477:
475:
471:
467:
466:
460:
458:
453:
451:
447:
443:
439:
433:
427:
425:
421:
418:
417:the dam burst
410:
408:
406:
405:United States
402:
401:domino theory
398:
397:Howard Kahane
394:
388:
383:
381:
380:
375:
370:
369:Domino effect
362:
360:
355:
350:
344:
342:
340:
336:
332:
331:
326:
318:
312:
309:
306:
305:domino theory
302:
298:
295:
294:
293:
291:
285:
281:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
250:
247:
243:
234:
232:
228:
216:
213:
208:
205:
149:
145:
141:
137:
131:
129:
127:
126:
121:
120:
115:
114:
109:
107:
102:
99:argument) or
98:
97:domino effect
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
73:
72:fearmongering
68:
66:
62:
58:
50:
45:
41:
37:
33:
19:
2508:Naturalistic
2491:
2479:
2459:
2430:
2414:of relevance
2357:
2335:Whataboutism
2327:
2303:
2297:Godwin's law
2289:
2269:
2152:
2145:Consequences
2126:Law/Legality
2104:
2100:Single cause
2073:
2066:
2023:
1906:
1774:Loki's Wager
1754:Equivocation
1747:Equivocation
1527:
1523:
1517:
1492:
1488:
1472:
1453:
1447:
1422:
1418:
1412:
1393:
1387:
1362:
1358:
1321:
1317:
1276:
1255:. Retrieved
1245:
1238:
1226:. Retrieved
1216:
1206:
1173:
1136:
1094:
1090:
1084:
1065:
1037:
1004:
997:
972:
964:
952:. Retrieved
948:
909:
905:
861:
854:
819:
815:
802:
783:
752:
746:
734:. Retrieved
732:(2): 539–592
729:
725:
698:. Retrieved
689:
680:
643:
584:Boiling frog
565:
561:
554:
535:
531:
516:
500:
496:
487:
483:
474:Felicia Bond
463:
461:
457:Bruce Waller
455:
446:boiling frog
438:camel's nose
435:
431:
422:
416:
414:
392:
390:
385:
377:
372:
357:
352:
348:
328:
322:
289:
286:
282:
269:
266:van Fraassen
257:
254:Trudy Govier
251:
245:
241:
238:
214:
206:
179:
135:
123:
119:boiling frog
117:
111:
106:camel's nose
104:
100:
92:
88:
76:
69:
56:
54:
40:
2528:Red herring
2285:Association
1966:Conjunction
1887:Composition
1784:Reification
1700:Existential
1652:Existential
1324:: 341–352.
700:16 December
557:Volokh 2003
200:will cause
192:will imply
184:will imply
108:in the tent
2586:Categories
2504:Moralistic
2438:Sealioning
2432:Ad nauseam
2359:Ipse dixit
2271:Ad hominem
2095:Regression
1897:Ecological
1710:Four terms
1628:Masked man
1253:p. 40
1249:. London:
1176:. Berlin:
912:(3): 273.
673:References
2545:Straw man
2423:Arguments
2412:fallacies
2386:Tradition
2376:Etymology
2348:Authority
2329:Tu quoque
2313:Bulverism
2083:Gambler's
2052:Animistic
1996:Ambiguity
1962:Base rate
1705:Necessity
1577:fallacies
1439:170107849
1330:1863-6470
838:0090-502X
639:Precedent
411:Dam burst
327:'s essay
300:outcome."
172:then ...
101:dam burst
2571:Category
2203:Ridicule
2188:Flattery
2178:Children
2075:Post hoc
1955:McNamara
1917:Accident
1892:Division
1739:Informal
1257:16 March
1214:(1893).
1119:24122327
1111:15040363
954:15 March
900:(2015).
846:26886759
782:(2007).
736:18 March
690:TXSt.edu
572:See also
403:for the
223:implies
209:argument
142:argument
2390:Novelty
2365:Poverty
2227:Loyalty
2193:Novelty
2170:Emotion
2119:Appeals
2088:Inverse
2068:Cum hoc
2057:Furtive
1575:Common
1509:1342743
1379:3481050
1228:16 June
928:2655360
448:" and "
229:fallacy
217:accused
65:warrant
2475:Cliché
2410:Other
2381:Nature
2369:Wealth
2004:Accent
1590:Formal
1507:
1460:
1437:
1400:
1377:
1328:
1287:
1194:
1147:
1117:
1109:
1072:
1044:
1016:
985:
926:
873:
844:
836:
790:
759:
325:Cicero
256:calls
122:, and
2237:Spite
2131:Stone
1505:JSTOR
1485:(PDF)
1435:S2CID
1375:JSTOR
1355:(PDF)
1314:(PDF)
1115:S2CID
812:(PDF)
167:; if
163:then
159:; if
155:then
146:event
138:event
55:In a
2323:Tone
2198:Pity
2183:Fear
1581:list
1458:ISBN
1398:ISBN
1326:ISSN
1285:ISBN
1259:2017
1230:2020
1192:ISBN
1145:ISBN
1107:PMID
1070:ISBN
1042:ISBN
1014:ISBN
983:ISBN
956:2017
924:SSRN
871:ISBN
842:PMID
834:ISSN
788:ISBN
757:ISBN
738:2017
702:2023
472:and
1642:In
1598:In
1532:doi
1497:doi
1493:116
1427:doi
1367:doi
1182:doi
1099:doi
1010:180
914:doi
867:246
824:doi
468:by
151:If
2588::
2506:/
2388:/
2367:/
2215:/
2133:/
1964:/
1827:/
1823:/
1802:/
1528:64
1526:.
1503:.
1491:.
1487:.
1433:.
1423:12
1421:.
1373:.
1363:87
1361:.
1357:.
1338:^
1320:.
1316:.
1299:^
1283:.
1267:^
1220:.
1190:.
1159:^
1127:^
1113:.
1105:.
1093:.
1056:^
1028:^
1012:.
981:.
979:84
947:.
936:^
922:.
910:35
908:.
904:.
885:^
869:.
840:.
832:.
820:44
818:.
814:.
771:^
730:51
728:.
724:.
710:^
688:.
395:.
280:"
204:.
128:.
116:,
110:,
91:,
1583:)
1579:(
1568:e
1561:t
1554:v
1538:.
1534::
1511:.
1499::
1466:.
1441:.
1429::
1406:.
1381:.
1369::
1332:.
1322:9
1293:.
1261:.
1232:.
1200:.
1184::
1153:.
1121:.
1101::
1095:4
1078:.
1050:.
1022:.
991:.
958:.
930:.
916::
879:.
848:.
826::
796:.
765:.
740:.
704:.
278:'
268:(
225:z
221:p
202:z
198:p
194:z
190:p
186:z
182:p
176:.
174:z
169:r
165:r
161:q
157:q
153:p
51:.
38:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
