Counciman,
et al,
Yes the question is about "validity" and NOT accuracy, truth, or expected outcomes. Historical evaluations and inductive reasoning are not a criteria
(personal opinion).
(COMMENT)
The "Slippery Slope Concept" is deductively valid when the outcome logically follows from the premises. "Validity" has to do with the form (or format) being evaluated.
- P1: All cats are dogs.
- P2: Kermat the Frog is a cat.
- THERFORE: Kermat the Frog is a dog.
----- OR -----
- P1: .FALSE
- P2: .FALSE
- THEREFORE: FALSE
Neither of the premises
(P1 or P2) in this evaluation is TRUE; they are both unquestionably FALSE. The outcome is FALSE. But the premises are properly formed. The overall evaluation is properly shaped and formatted.
However,
IF the premises were both TRUE, then the conclusion would also have to be TRUE.
Hence the position taken here (the formation of the decision process) is "valid;" even though we all know it is - in no way - the least bit "sound in its outcome." Validity has nothing to do with what the Premise stipulates or even whether the premises are TRUE.
The "Slippery Slope" concept does not have to be foolproof to be valid. That is not what "to be valid means." As Condoleezza Rice once said, the process by which they made the decision to go to war was valid. What she implied
(in absentia) was that the Premises
(given as fact) were considered TRUE
(later to be determined as FALSE). THUS: The position and outcome was FALSE; or NOT SOUND.
The question of "Validity" is only half the question; the other half is "soundness." Each adoption or application of the "Slippery Slope" must be evaluated individually; against BOTH criteria (it must be both "sound" and "valid").
Most Respectfully,
R