In Defense of Slippery Slope: A Critique of a Postmodern Logical "Fallacy"

In examining two separate listings of recognized logical fallacies, I had noted each had declared the concept of the "slippery slope" as a bona fide error in reasoning.  Wondering that I may have missed something in my courses in logic (taken in the 70's and early 80's), I consulted my old textbooks (works by Irwin Copi and Richard Jeffrey).  I could not find references to this as a recognized logical fallacy, and thus wondered about its present inclusion.  The definition of the slippery slope fallacy is given as: Assuming that a relatively small first step will inevitably result in a series of several presumably negative results.  The example given as a classic misuse of the slippery slope:  Legalizing marijuana will inevitably increase the use of more serious drugs as crack and heroin, which will promote the further legalization of these substances as well.

I have studied this issue of the slippery slope as a legitimate fallacy and deem a few matters wanting.  The first point is the matter of believing the true error being that of false cause.  The process of causation is a complex one, and determining if a correct series of events can be surmised from a first cause is central to this issue.  In some instances, a series of cause-effect situations could be determined.  in making valid judgment decisions, we hope to see what would be affected from them.  The other matter is determining the flow of events that have occurred and the tendency of similar results being attained over similar matters.  In a classical ploy of foiled logic, an argument in the 1950's expressed the thought of allowing African-Americans to sit in any portion of the bus having the effect of conceding other considerations as eating in whites-only restaurants, living in any neighborhood, using the same schooling opportunities.  Happily, the intent of sharpening resolve to deny such advancements of human equality were rejected.  But did conceding one issue lead to the concession of others?  Many slippery slopes are worth the time to schuss down.

The novelty of this logical fallacy also has the difficulty of denying the premise of a "domino effect" recognized in other situations.  In the very point of this concept's introduction, the argument that deserting Vietnam would guarantee the conversion of the whole region of South East Asia to Communism had mixed results.  Laos and Cambodia, yes.  Thailand and Malaysia, no.  The sense that such a tipping of small states from democratic forms to Communism was achieved, but not to the fullest level.  Thus, an ability to offer some predictions is possible, and rejecting the appeal of a slippery slope causality demonstrates an unwillingness to ponder the possibilities or offer alternate results.

The idea of the slippery slope can be traced to one verse in the Psalms:

Surely you set them in slippery places.
You throw them down to destruction. (Ps.73: 18)

The sense of this verse is the psalmist's quandary over the apparent successes of the unbeliever, who thwarts the Deity, yet seems to prosper at every opportunity.  After much frustration over the matter, he comes to realize that having one's goals set on accomplishment and acquisition deprives that person from coming to fear God, and on failing to repent, face destruction at the judgment.  It is the very idea that actions have consequences that ought to make one pause over the decisions one effects. This is the intent of the slippery slope argument, and it should be valued.  Or if seen in this light:

If A occurs, then Z, an unpleasant circumstance will occur.
If A is performed on the hope that Z can be averted, A could be permitted.
But if Z occurs, then the original objection to A would be valid.  But then it would be too late.
Can the prospect of averting Z be justified?

The problem is causality, and the importance (or possibility) of determining what may come versus what must come leads to a need to discuss the matter fully.  Thus the slippery slope argument is an invitation to verify our fears of what may come from thoughtless or inconsiderate choices.  The fallacy of false cause would be valid, but only after establishing the probable results.

Let us not condemn the so-called slippery slope as definite logical fallacy, but the need to pause and reflect.



Logical Fallacies and the Foundations of Truth/Reality

In studying the chart of the various logical fallacies, I was drawn to the listing of illegitimate appeals to the mind, such as appeals to popular belief, money, and established or assumed authority.  Two that caught my attention were the fallacies of appeal to novelty and appeal to tradition.  The examples of the zeal for the latest trend and the traditional conception of marriage as between man and woman were obvious examples of the perception of culture as a neutralizing agent for all presented arguments.  An innovation is merely new, not true.  The ideas that have passed some test of time may still be based on erroneous suppositions that could change with modern scientific discovery.  As I paused to take in this dissertation on what could make an argument fallacious, an intriguing application to this came up in the sports section of the local (Madison, WI) newspaper and television newscasts.

It appears that for the next two years, the boys and girls' state basketball tournaments will no longer be played at one site, the Kohl's Center of Madison.  In the next two years, the boys' event will continue to be held in Madison, while the girls' final round games will be played in Green Bay.  Thereupon, the reviewing body, the WIAA, will review the issue of placement.  The rationale of this move was based on site availability in an expanding use market in sporting events.  The newscasts were thorough and fair is assessing the situation, but felt a sense of loss, if not in tradition, at least in lost revenue.  The Wisconsin State Journal also reported the decision of the WIAA and the rationale behind this selection process, but also published an editorial on the need to return the WIAA boys and girls' basketball tourney to a single Madisonian site.  Again, the reference to lost revenue was echoed, along with a litany of a lost heritage of classic basketball battles in the capital city in the thrilling month of March.

Set side by side was the conflict of the novel and the traditional, the need for change with an impetus to accommodate future change to a traditional model.  It was maddening that Madison's personal loss was the underpinning of the whole matter, not the issue of availability, nor a site more central in the state to accommodate towns from the furthest northern section of the Badger State, nor an arena whose size could accomodate the several levels of competition in the huge structure of Wisconsin High School Basketball.  It pained Madison, and thus the issue runs large, never to be resolved until Madison monopolizes the tournament once again.

Is convenience and personal advantage the final groundings of what we are to accept as truth and reality?  On certain days I wonder, and remark that all the neccessary logical safeguards, the careful regard not to commit some logical fallacy, are being sacrificed to a central elite standard that determines what is acceptable as it benefits them and few others.  I would love to see the WIAA keep a tournament presence in Madison (tradition) but realize a need to impliment change (novelty).  A good solution would be a traditional construct that feels the impulse of adaptation and meets the needs as they arrive.  If traditions are to be maintained, work is in store to keep them valid.  And in that one sense, it proves the old French proverb, Le plus change, le plus reste.  The more things change ...





Critique of McCandless & Posavec's Left/Right Government Infographic

Before I move forward with this post, I wish to acknowledge the brilliance that this graphic has offered to my understanding of political systems.  I viewed this graphic after scanning the rhetorical and logical fallacies chart (another fine example of well-structured information).  But I noted that the vast array of examples of foggy reasoning leaned heavily on conservative thought, only once using Bill Clinton's example of the overt lie as bad logic.  It was then that I saw that one of the sites other displays was a graphic explaining the concepts of left-wing and right-wing political opinion.  I was curious, so I switched views and admired the depth of detail in explaining the major tenets of what it meant to be left and right in the political spectrum.

The graphic splits into two areas each employing red and blue ink to differentiate the major groups.  And yes, Democratic Party was found in the blue section, the Republican in the red.  For the most part it noted the emphases of each mindset fairly, with the leftist desire for equality matched by the rightist love for freedom.  It acknowledged the leftist approach of having government interfere with the structures of society and the rightist tenet of non-interference.  I agree that the leftist family would seek to promote the potential of their children while the rightist drives to form good character as their main goal.  I questioned the viewpoint of social evolution as the primary socialogical trend of the leftist while the rightist seeks the status quo; it seemed more of a matter of change and acceptance of same.  A conservative would acknowledge that change occurs, but wishes such change would impact society positively, and seeks towards a studied change.

Yet, I felt the diagram also injected unsubstantial dogma, which would easily lead to strawman argumentation (the promotion of the opponent's argument that clearly is a weaken argument, or a misconception of the argument.  In the political spectrum, the Democratic Party would match with the Communist Party, while the Republican would have the Nationalist Party as its kindred spirit.  This is an unnecessary pigeonhole.  Republicans have the ability to field candidates from a wide range of political viewpoints; thus the present Republican primary-debates seem to be a wrangling over who is the true conservative.  Indeed, several of the Democratic Party members would identify as conservative, whether fiscal or moral.  we always seem to fume over RINO's and DINO's.  The notion that the foundation of the leftist as scientific while the rightist is theistic is also inaccurate.  It begs to lead to the unfounded notion that rightists are Bible banging science haters; leftists as godless hooligans..  To suggest that the educational approaches of the leftist lean towards cooperation while rightists favor individualism belies the usage of cooperative learning strategies employed in conservative schools.  To indicate that the leftist tends to be urban while the rightist tends to be rural promotes the misconception that the urbanite can't be conservative, nor the farmer a liberal.  In fact, I am a conservative and a teacher.  This occupation is deemed an exploit of the left-leaner.  I am said to be better suited-for business.  I personally can't fathom economics.

In short, while the info gram tends to be a fine compendium of political concepts, it can never be a 100% fool-proof indicator of each and every person's political assessment.  To bandy about that leftists are pacifists and rightists are militarists could be simplistic, and slanderous.  Even a leftist has been known to throw a punch, a rightist to offer philanthropic gestures.

I offer the infographic below.  Examine and ponder.

 

The Hyper-Skeptic, Descartes, and Traveling to Town

In a recent posting from Apologetics 315, Bill Pratt offered an investigation to the question, "Is There Ever Enough Evidence for the Hyper-Skeptic?"  Critiquing the view of an atheist James Croft who had disputed the Resurrection on the Unbelievable? broadcast of April 7th, he had disagreed with the criterion to gain such a flat refusal.  He concluded, " Anybody who would say that no amount of eyewitness testimony from the past should ever convince anyone that a person came back from the dead is arguing not from a position of neutrality, but from an extreme philosophical skepticism in the tradition of David Hume. "

The seed of skepticism that permeates modern thought had its initiation in the writings of Rene Descartes, who came to disbelieve the whole of reality up to the famed maxim Cogito Ergo Sum.  I think, therefore I am.  From this, Descartes could broaden the realms of what is possible, real, and substantial.  But it centers on ones perceptions based on rationalistic grounds.  A form of Cartesian doubt should guide such perceptions.

While Descartes laid a foundation in skeptical doubt which Hume could exploit in matters non-physical, it is at the core not too pragmatic.  There is a degree of invalidity to a foundational doubt.  I would attempt to explain such in this brief analogy.

THE ANALOGY OF THE DRIVE TO TOWN 

I live a distance of six miles from the town where I tend to conduct my affairs, shop, visit, and the like.  I tend to motor to town by the same route.  Over the years, I have come to be so used to the route that I tend not to note those things I have passed frequently.  Anything novel would be noticed.  It was such a structure, a stable, that I came to notice at one point.  Where did it come from, or, thanks to Descartes, was it truly there?  How could its existence be verified?  I pondered the issue and thought that if I were to drive my car off the road and collide with the building, that might well accomplish that test.  So I mused, but passed by on the road to town.

The issue rests.  But, if such a diverted route would have been attempted and followed through to impact, would this actually satisfy philosophical doubt, or would the effort be deemed as illusory and subject to further doubt?  All skepticism aside, such an effort would be rash, insane, presumptive, and most likely fatal.  Still, whether the action had been taken or not, the stable still stands at the side of the road, and is available for viewing as I pass by on my journeys to and from town.  To be seen or ignored, to be precise.

Thus it is with skepticism, as Pratt further noted: The critical point to take home is this: hyper-skeptics are usually only skeptical about a small number of select topics, and are thus hopelessly inconsistent in their skepticism. Their skepticism is, in most cases, just a philosophical cover for being anti-whatever-they-don’t-like.

There is another term for the matter:  closed mindedness.  If this be the case, shall society persist in its pursuit of fashionable skepticism, or see it for what it truly is?



The Strawman Argument: The Liberal Arsenal

I found this You Tube offering in my frequent searches for ideas in exploring the strawman argument.  I found that the conservative is as apt to use the fallacy.  One logic fallacy site noted the work of Dr. James Dobson and his tendency to misunderstand the opposing side.  So, I'm not too biased in presenting this clip of the strawman used by the President.

View and ponder.

Gospels, Q-theorie, and the Analogy of the Classroom Assignment

In the most recent reading of the Christian Apologetics UK blog site, I came across the article entitled, "John's portrayal of Jesus is so different from the Synoptics that some scholars have no confidence in its historicity."  It moved from this premise to examine four schools of opinion on the nature of John's Gospel over against the Synoptic Gospels.  They see John as 1) independent of, 2) interpretive of, 3) substitute for, and 4) supplementary to the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

In a discipline that endured Bart Ehrman's "Telephone Theory" of manuscript transmission and the dissecting of paganizing influences in the Gospel accounts, I enjoy the rebuffs as Christopher Price's assessment of the scholars who refuse to assert the historicity of Jesus due to the Christ Myth theory:

I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.

I grew up with the theories and trends of the liberalizing scholars who have examined the four Gospels to death, questioning the construction, authorship, and integrity of these four separate accounts of the ministry of Jesus simply by stating that we don't have four separate accounts of Jesus ministry.  Just a core document, developed from a oral collection of Jesus episodes (Q or Quelle) which developed into a proto-gospel (Ur Mark, if not Mark itself), from which the other synoptics drew up their accounts.  I grew up in a time when the Documentary Hypothesis (remember JEDP?), late-dating of the Gospels, redaction criticism, and Formgeschichtemethode came and waned into scholarly oblivion.  I have not sought out the kerygma for quite a while.  I am confident that the furor over Ehrman's quandaries of today will follow the pathway of its liberal predecessors into the scholastic version of the "Twilight Zone."

It is not that I haven't an interest in the Synoptic Problem, three accounts of Jesus career expressed with both clear agreement and possible discrepancies due to viewpoint.  To a certain degree I have resolved it as the most obvious solution: four independent histories of the same three-year ministry of Jesus.  To explain it further, I offer this analogy.

THE ANALOGY OF THE CLASSROOM ASSIGNMENT

The teacher, Ms. Truman, offered the class a special assignment.  They were to write an essay about the day's proceedings.  However, she was to have the class go at it in a remarkably different manner.  In the end, there would be four complete essays.  She would be sure to assign the task to four special students.  Here would be her procedure:

1.  The first writer would be a special pick, a good wordsmith who would enjoy the writing assignment.  This fellow would be picked in light of a specific quality, being one of the more unpopular students.  This student would examine the day's proceedings in the viewpoint of one who enjoys the routine of the school day, and would be likely to insert reasons why the day would go swimmingly, even if others would not agree.

2.  Ms. Truman noted one student had hurt both hands in a recent accident.  She knows him to be capable of talking up the events of the day, and knows that if he could dictate them, a fine essay could be drafted.  She had enlisted the help of this student's mother, who agreed to help her child.  She is a fine amanuensis, and even injects a few comments based on her similar activities in a classroom.

3.  Ms. Truman's third writer is not from the classroom, but is brought in from another room to talk to the students of the classroom and carefully formulate the proceedings of the day through the various eyewitnesses that he speaks to and records.  The student is a fine practitioner of writing style and is quite capable of presenting an adequate account of the day.

4.  Ms. Truman's final writer is allowed one privilege not granted the other three.  This fellow is allowed to read the first three essays and is instructed to draw up an account of the day's activities that he felt were not touched upon.  Of course, he should make mention of some of the events of the others if it is a necessary part of the telling.

What will be the result of this assignment?  Exactly what one will expect in a comparative reading of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  You will have the retelling of the day, not with an exactitude of copying, but with the similarity of witnessing the same actions, hearing the same words, expressed in accordance to the personal style and point of view of four distinct individuals who were allowed to write under specific circumstances.  Each Gospel writer gathered and used events to their liking and predilections.

It is a simplistic explanation to the Synoptic Problem, although it could easily be expanded on if we understand the differing backgrounds of each writer.  It is at best a natural explanation, one that need not be bolstered with attendant theories to explain production.

• 

Critique of Neo-Skepticism

This idea was inspired by a recent entry on the Apologetics 315 site dealing with an Easter campaign by Dr. Michael Licona's Credo House Ministry.  It is a collection of ten short videos called The Case for the Resurrecton of Christ.  What caught my attention was Licona's proposal of these episodes as responses to ten "myths" raised by those who reject the Resurrection, such as hallucinations, apparent death theory, contradictions within the four resurrection accounts, allusions to materials in the lost gospel, etc.

I took some time to ponder the idea of the contributions of the skeptic being reduced to the realm of mythology, until I made a mental distinction between a true skeptic (one who will demand evidence) and what I term the neo-skeptic (those who persist in doubt not only after evidence is offered, but also continue to present the same argumentation even after their key proposals are shown to be ill-conceived and proven false).  I had once remarked the the legacy of the New Atheism is an introduction of an Age of Misinformation, and now I see my ideas are not misplaced.  We all need to know when skepticism is a natural approach to many situations that need to be explained and expanded upon.  We also need to acknowledge when such skepticism flies in the face of logic, being not less a non-intellectual temper tantrum to be firm in refusal to concede a point.

I offer here one of Licona's videos I thought especially appropriate for this season of Easter.  To see the entire list of ten, do take time to visit Apoplogetics 315.  Watch and ponder.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/39315039?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/39315039">Myth #8: Science Proves that Resurrections Cannot Occur</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user6820541">Credo House</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

The Crux of the Matter: The Foundations of Political Correctness

A thought came to me as I was reading Lee Strobel's Case for a Creator.  At the time he was declaring that science was locked into a philosophical strait-jacket called naturalistic materialism (which causes a defense of the evolutionary theory even against evidence to the contrary), I was hearing in the background a news brief about some matter of censorship based on political correctness.  This was a moment of revelation for me for all the changes of view and opinion that I had observed in the last two decades.  The phenomenon of political correctness had started out as a recognized whim of liberal-minded individuals to allow a greater range of thought to enter the circles of society.

In the atmosphere of highly-charged tolerance for almost anything short of absolutism in morals and ethics, it occurred to me that the criterion of political correctness had a grounding in multicultural thought, naturalistic materialism, and moral relativism.  Any notion that is out of sync with any of these three aphorisms is at onset an unacceptable tenet in neo-American public.

Multiculturalism has a basic truth in the fact that America is derived from many ethnic backgrounds, a world influx of immigration.  But the concept of melting pot has been given over to the ideal of a mosaic, a work that is constructed of many different tiles and colors.  Perhaps apt, but it loses in essence an understanding of a core American culture, a typical "what every American must know" to truly understand the American condition.  Thus no grounding in the earliest history of the American Revolution with its founding fathers and documents.  Promote a course in basic history of America and intense study of Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and there will be complains that no time is given to African-American issues, Islamic cultural studies, or affirmation of women's rights.

Naturalistic materialism narrows the range of human knowledge as to only what science can affirm, if it is able to affirm anything.  Giving no account of God, it cannot delegate a moral code that is applicable to all ranks.  Moral confusion as to what we can determine beyond the dictates of the scientifically proposed elite class of social autocrats is in the offering. A neutral state of anyone deters the moral code for self is the best resolution, but it would need to be enforced by tolerance police.

It can be defended that political correctness once was established by moral absolutes and a Biblical worldview.  It wasn't called political correctness at the time, but it makes for a reasonable request.  If it is possible, if a positon that we must allow as PC is derived from these two counter-philosophies, how can it best be advanced?  The present climate would not allow for such, even though a code of tolerance is advocated by political correctness.  This is the ultimate weakness of PC; it cannot present what it proposes, but must expurgate concepts in opposition to it, though in a PC society such should be impossible.

The ability to disagree diplomatically would sooner be lost than one tenet of political correctness be abandoned.  It could well be that the new revolution that would reshape society would be a PiC (political incorrectness) movement, a revolt against a hypocritical political philosophy that cannot accept criticism.  Such rebuffs could well be vulgar, brutal, and perhaps violent.  We need not divide into PC and PiC factions, but if it ever came to such -- I shutter to think of the consequences.  We are uncivil enough as is.