Talk:slippery slope

RFV discussion: December 2015–September 2016

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

slippery slope

Rfv-sense. I have two problems with this definition: "An argument that follows a chain of events or causes and effects to some conclusion."

1. I don't find it in other dictionaries.
2. I don't understand what it possibly means. Which sense of "argument" applies? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a confusing way of getting to the same point as the original definition. P Aculeius (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I had to read it about four times before I understood it. If you bracket it like this "An argument that [follows a chain of events or causes and] effects to some conclusion." hopefully it's easier to understand by skipping over the bit in the brackets. Note that this definition has no negative connotations. A slippery slope that's an argument where the outcome isn't negative. But I'm also pretty sure it's just an error. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Aculeius that the second definition appears to be a restatement of the first sense. Also, I don't think slippery slope is ever used in a positive or neutral sense, so if that is the intent of the second definition I think it is wrong. Smuconlaw (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. The Wikipedia article on Slippery slope states that it is a "logical device in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom." It seems to me that the disputed definition is actually an attempt for a definition of "slippery slope argument" and should thus be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, @Renard Migrant, it's "An argument (=series of propositions, or process of reasoning) {that {follows {a chain of {events or {causes and effects}}} to {some conclusion}}}". It's an argument like "Well, if we allow Joe to do it, then Jim will want to, so we'll need to allow him, and pretty soon everyone will do it". In other words, it's an argument that says "there is a slippery slope (sense 1) at risk here". As Hekaheka says, this is, in my experience, called a "slippery-slope argument": I've never AFAIR heard a slippery-slope argument called a "slippery slope" alone, but cites will tell.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have heard it by itself, "that's a slippery slope!" But I still believe that the second definition doesn't add anything to the first. And it's garbled. A slippery slope argument doesn't follow a chain of events or causes and effects. It asserts that one act will necessarily or eventually result in other, undesirable actions. It doesn't follow anything, because you don't have to describe each step, identify the mechanism, or even the result. Usually the person describing something as a slippery slope is understood without a full explanation. It can give the end result, with the rest of the assertion inferred; or it might give examples of the kinds of things that might happen, but the direction of the argument may be reasonably obvious without any specifics. And, although the Wikipedia article defines it as a fallacy, I believe that's a mistake. It's a rhetorical figure that might or might not be proved correct. It doesn't stop being a slippery slope if the predicted result comes to pass, nor is it disproved if the course of action warned against is rejected. It's a slippery slope because of what it predicts, without respect to the actual outcome. Since the slippery slope is always used to caution someone against a particular decision, it could be argued that it's negative, but since positive and negative depend on one's point of view with respect to the desirable result, I wouldn't specify whether it's positive or negative. P Aculeius (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I've always considered "slippery slope" essentially a synonym of the thin edge of the wedge: the beginning of a course of action that may escalate beyond the point of desirability. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically my understanding. They're not identical, but very similar expressions. Usually person A and person B disagree about action 1, and person B attempts to persuade person A that actions 2, 3, 4, which neither person desires, would almost inevitably follow from action 1. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• I created slippery slope fallacy. It has many mentions, and I hope it also finds some uses given how many hits it has. google books:"slippery slope fallacy". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That really looks like a sum-of-parts entry. One can also refer to "slippery slope arguments", but there's no reason to have a separate entry for each permutation of "slippery slope X". Besides, a slippery slope isn't necessarily a fallacy; if it were, you could automatically disregard it whenever it's made. P Aculeius (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we ready to conclude by:

1. deleting the disputed sense
2. adding a link to "slippery slope fallacy"?

--Hekaheka (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not wait for a month since nomination date to see whether someone provides attesting quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Why keep a confusing and unhelpful restatement of a good definition as a separate sense? P Aculeius (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a question of procedure rather than 'keeping' the entry. I think it's just plain nonsense but less not start skipping the 30 day rule willy-nilly. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Rfv failed > deleted the disputed sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)