Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack
The reason a butterfly effect is a non-acceptable form of reason is because cause and effect are linear. Like I said earlier, it is a slippery slope. A slippery slope is fallacious in reasoning, because it tries to take a random series of events and link the first to the last. You can't do that logically.
Well...I don't know. Logic and argument aren't the same thing, and contemporary rhetorics aren't as formal as logic, by design. Technically, the slippery slope fallacy doesn't really try to connect random series of events. The problem is the assumption of evidence for the worst possible outcome. The primary problem there is bad faith, not inherent consequence - which, I'd like to note, suggests a deterministic mechanism.
And considering the strong hint of panpsychism and anthropo-skepticism in this thread, I don't think causality should be assumed; I mean, you can
assume for the purposes of your argument, but you'll never agree to terms. Non-causality in metaphysics and epistemology are pretty well-established (and still current), so statements like "we can all assume cause and effect" aren't really true for all metaphysical systems. If you think that all information or matter is similar, or that all is reducible to information or a matter, then cause and effect disappears or becomes only correlative.
Lively discussion. Good stuff.