But that’s an unreasonable standard to hold people to. If the argument can be made sound by adding a load of “will probably tend to...” operators, you should do so, not nitpick.
Yvain said there are slippery slopes and identified Schelling points as a natural stopping point of them. Nonetheless, I think we should be suspicious of the slippery-slop argument because it can easily be a fully general counter argument unless it resorts to specific evidence in support.
Edit: My question is more directed at the divide you asserted between “classical rationality” and whatever alternative you think is better.
Too strong; one does not need for them to always happen.
In response to the question you meant to ask, Yvain said it well
One does if one presents the reasoning as an unqualified logical deduction. That is the realm where most of these ‘logical fallacies’ apply.
But that’s an unreasonable standard to hold people to. If the argument can be made sound by adding a load of “will probably tend to...” operators, you should do so, not nitpick.
Yvain said there are slippery slopes and identified Schelling points as a natural stopping point of them. Nonetheless, I think we should be suspicious of the slippery-slop argument because it can easily be a fully general counter argument unless it resorts to specific evidence in support.
Edit: My question is more directed at the divide you asserted between “classical rationality” and whatever alternative you think is better.
Right. So
If we eat ice-cream on tuesdays now, soon the earth will be attacked by killer neopods!
is a poor slippery slope, whereas
If we eat ice-cream on tuesdays now, we’ll soon eat it every day
is not.