Originally Posted by viva_nate
Yes, of course. "Every effect has a cause" is an assumption, and there's nothing wrong with that. Arguments are based on assumptions, all informal logic, all rhetoric, is probabilistic, is based on assumptions. If it didn't, it would have to rely on a formal language, like Logic does. (Aristotelian rhetoric/informal logic is based on three assumptions, for instance. You can't have a rational or informal logic without these assumptions)
I don't even necessarily disagree with assuming causal relationships. But my point is that the event isn't reduced to cause and effect in a lot of philosophical systems, current and ancient. The informal logic you cite, the naturalistic panpsychism of panspermia - these are hard to reconcile with strict causality. But you're insisting on it. I'll admit these are minor points in the scope of the argument, but they're technical points worth mentioning.
No, the wording was ok, I just don't believe the definition is correct. If you were talking about random connections between premises and conclusion, you'd be talking about non sequitur arguments.
Slippery slope arguments are generally intentional, and they're often effective (and valid). I feel like the appearance of the slope is what makes the "butterfly effect" rhetorically powerful, actually: there are so many steps on the slope with seemingly weak causality. But it's actually the steps that exhibit strong causality, and our perception of the steepness of the slope that makes us doubt the accuracy of the scientific model. It's the impossibility of the scale between the butterfly and the storm that intrigues us, but exhibits coherence when you focus. It mimics the models chaos proposes. It's a great metaphor.
Again, these are quibbles, kind of a fallacy in itself.
I don't assume cause and effect. Show me an effect that has no cause. We may be using different definitions of the word assume. I use it as the insertion of an idea or principle that goes without knowing, but fits the parameters. I don't like that word.
I mentioned Panspermia twice, but never insisted on it. It does occur, but I only mentioned it as an idea as to why life itself was generated.
As far as Slippery Slope goes, it is not a valid form of argumentation. I have spent the past four semesters taking Philosophy, Logic, Ethics, and Critical Thinking, and can tell you without a doubt that the Slippery Slope is an argumental fallacy and is not acceptable as far as a reason to accept a claim. Every argument can be deconstructed as a slippery slope, but that is obviously in reverse.
I would just like to state that in this topic, I've picked my side, but that's it. I obviously don't know the answers, but also am not going to sway from the side I've chosen. I actually enjoy this kind of stuff.