>>5885766>>5885068>>5883514>>5883526>noo ""logical fallacy""all a logical fallacy means is that your conclusion is not 100% guaranteed by the argument you present given certain premises. this is useful for when we are dealing with very specific and easily quantifiable things, such as logic gates or simple arguments such as "socrates = man, men all die, therefore socrates will die." if you are discussing such nuanced topics as society, human behavioral patterns, etc. its ridiculous to assert that the slippery slope ""fallacy"" can never be an accurate indicator of outcomes.
if it is shown that in human societies, 9/10 times a certain behavior leads to a cascade of effects that can be accurately predicted by the slippery slope """""fallacy"""""" then it is still a fallacy because that line of logic does not guarantee a conclusion from the premises, as clearly evidenced by the 1 time out of 10. however, it would be ridiculous to then reject any notion that the slipper slope HEURISTIC, because that is what it is, could be accurate in any given case. it isn't exactly what i'm talking about, but there is even the "fallacy fallacy," if you absolutely refuse to accept that heuristics are needed when discussing issues as complex and multifaceted as human psychology, societal behavior, etc whatever
what am i missing??
>In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur[1] (/?n?n ?s?kwJt?r/; Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic....
>The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion.[3] Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic. i am discussing artwork/critique
