It offers a more detailed, in depth explination. I also recommend the show(s) SGU and SGU 5x5.
If you really want to jump in, you can check out The Great Courses. One in particular called "Your Deceptive Mind" taught by Neurologist Dr Steven Novella covers critical thinking, logical fallacies and the like.
Dr. Novella also happens to be the host of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe when The Great Courses advertise with them, they have a coupon code for TGC.
You're welcome.
Just remember, logical fallacies are often subtly layered on each other. This election season you are sure to hear many Slippery Slopes, wrapped in Non Sequiturs and sprinkled with Reductio ad Absurdum.
I do not understand how 2 is a fallacy. Its fucking correct.
As long as "A => B" (A implies B) then if you want to avoid B you HAVE TO avoid A in the firstplace. This is the DEFINITION of an implication.
It is actually presented a bit poorly here actually.
In the progression of a logical argument the slippery slope fallacy is committed when it is argued that A will cause B, when A isn't nessacarily causal to B.
It is most often recognised when it is wrapped in a Non Sequitur where the result, B, is often overblown and highly exaggerated:
Republicans would often argue against gay rights because: everyone would want to be gay, everyone would turn gay, everyone would marry gay... and the next thing you know we are humping and marrying rocks, chairs, monkeys and our sisters... there would be nothing stopping us.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
It offers a more detailed, in depth explination. I also recommend the show(s) SGU and SGU 5x5.
If you really want to jump in, you can check out The Great Courses. One in particular called "Your Deceptive Mind" taught by Neurologist Dr Steven Novella covers critical thinking, logical fallacies and the like.
Dr. Novella also happens to be the host of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe when The Great Courses advertise with them, they have a coupon code for TGC.
Just remember, logical fallacies are often subtly layered on each other. This election season you are sure to hear many Slippery Slopes, wrapped in Non Sequiturs and sprinkled with Reductio ad Absurdum.
Looks pretty, but when you bite into it, there's nothing really there.
As long as "A => B" (A implies B) then if you want to avoid B you HAVE TO avoid A in the firstplace. This is the DEFINITION of an implication.
In the progression of a logical argument the slippery slope fallacy is committed when it is argued that A will cause B, when A isn't nessacarily causal to B.
It is most often recognised when it is wrapped in a Non Sequitur where the result, B, is often overblown and highly exaggerated:
Republicans would often argue against gay rights because: everyone would want to be gay, everyone would turn gay, everyone would marry gay... and the next thing you know we are humping and marrying rocks, chairs, monkeys and our sisters... there would be nothing stopping us.
HOW DO YOU HAVE THAT CARD
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE IN THE HEART OF THE CARDS
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!!!