more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Slippery slope arguments are not intended as demonstrative arguments, but rather as a challenge to show where a boundary is, and to show that the boundary is not arbitrary.
Gist of Idea
Slippery slope arguments are challenges to show where a non-arbitrary boundary lies
Source
Barbara Vetter (Potentiality [2015], 5.3.3)
Book Ref
Vetter,Barbara: 'Potentiality: from Dispositions to Modality' [OUP 2015], p.157
A Reaction
[extracted from details of its context] You could respond by saying that a slippery slope levels off, rather than hitting a wall or plunging to perdition.
| 3993 | Arguments are nearly always open to challenge, but they help to explain a position rather than force people to believe [Lewis] |
| 20220 | Objection by counterexample is weak, because it only reveals inaccuracies in one theory [Zagzebski] |
| 6856 | Valid arguments can be rejected by challenging the premises or presuppositions [Martin,M] |
| 19215 | Arguers often turn the opponent's modus ponens into their own modus tollens [Merricks] |
| 19504 | My modus ponens might be your modus tollens [Pritchard,D] |
| 23769 | Promoting an ontology by its implied good metaphysic is an 'argument-by-display' [Williams,NE] |
| 19115 | You can 'rebut' an argument's conclusion, or 'undercut' its premises [Antonelli] |
| 18405 | A 'teepee' argument has several mutually supporting planks to it [Cappelen/Dever] |
| 19023 | Slippery slope arguments are challenges to show where a non-arbitrary boundary lies [Vetter] |