The Camel's Nose is in the Tent: Rules, Theories, and Slippery Slopes

Mario Rizzo, Douglas Glen Whitman

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    Abstract

    Slippery slopes have been the topic of a spate of recent literature. In this Article, the authors provide a general theory for understanding and evaluating slippery slope arguments and their associated slippery slope events. The central feature of the theory is a structure of discussion within which all arguments take place. The structure is multilayered, consisting of decisions, rules, theories, and research programs. Each layer influences and shapes the layer beneath: Rules influence decisions, theories influence the choice of rules, and research programs influence the choice of theories. In this structure, slippery slope arguments take the form of meta-arguments, as they purport to predict the future development of arguments in the structure of discussion. Evaluating such arguments requires knowledge of the specific content of the structure of discussion itself. This Article, then presents four viable, types of slippery slope arguments; draws attention to four different factors that, other things equal, tend to increase the likelihood of slippery slopes; and explores a variety of strategies for coping with slippery slopes.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)539-592
    Number of pages54
    JournalUCLA Law Review
    Volume51
    Issue number2
    StatePublished - Dec 2003

    Fingerprint

    decision theory
    coping
    event
    literature

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Law

    Cite this

    Rizzo, M., & Whitman, D. G. (2003). The Camel's Nose is in the Tent: Rules, Theories, and Slippery Slopes. UCLA Law Review, 51(2), 539-592.

    The Camel's Nose is in the Tent : Rules, Theories, and Slippery Slopes. / Rizzo, Mario; Whitman, Douglas Glen.

    In: UCLA Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, 12.2003, p. 539-592.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    Rizzo, M & Whitman, DG 2003, 'The Camel's Nose is in the Tent: Rules, Theories, and Slippery Slopes', UCLA Law Review, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 539-592.
    Rizzo, Mario ; Whitman, Douglas Glen. / The Camel's Nose is in the Tent : Rules, Theories, and Slippery Slopes. In: UCLA Law Review. 2003 ; Vol. 51, No. 2. pp. 539-592.
    @article{c192096c368c4639a134d3668284419d,
    title = "The Camel's Nose is in the Tent: Rules, Theories, and Slippery Slopes",
    abstract = "Slippery slopes have been the topic of a spate of recent literature. In this Article, the authors provide a general theory for understanding and evaluating slippery slope arguments and their associated slippery slope events. The central feature of the theory is a structure of discussion within which all arguments take place. The structure is multilayered, consisting of decisions, rules, theories, and research programs. Each layer influences and shapes the layer beneath: Rules influence decisions, theories influence the choice of rules, and research programs influence the choice of theories. In this structure, slippery slope arguments take the form of meta-arguments, as they purport to predict the future development of arguments in the structure of discussion. Evaluating such arguments requires knowledge of the specific content of the structure of discussion itself. This Article, then presents four viable, types of slippery slope arguments; draws attention to four different factors that, other things equal, tend to increase the likelihood of slippery slopes; and explores a variety of strategies for coping with slippery slopes.",
    author = "Mario Rizzo and Whitman, {Douglas Glen}",
    year = "2003",
    month = "12",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "51",
    pages = "539--592",
    journal = "UCLA Law Review",
    issn = "0041-5650",
    publisher = "American Statistical Association",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The Camel's Nose is in the Tent

    T2 - Rules, Theories, and Slippery Slopes

    AU - Rizzo, Mario

    AU - Whitman, Douglas Glen

    PY - 2003/12

    Y1 - 2003/12

    N2 - Slippery slopes have been the topic of a spate of recent literature. In this Article, the authors provide a general theory for understanding and evaluating slippery slope arguments and their associated slippery slope events. The central feature of the theory is a structure of discussion within which all arguments take place. The structure is multilayered, consisting of decisions, rules, theories, and research programs. Each layer influences and shapes the layer beneath: Rules influence decisions, theories influence the choice of rules, and research programs influence the choice of theories. In this structure, slippery slope arguments take the form of meta-arguments, as they purport to predict the future development of arguments in the structure of discussion. Evaluating such arguments requires knowledge of the specific content of the structure of discussion itself. This Article, then presents four viable, types of slippery slope arguments; draws attention to four different factors that, other things equal, tend to increase the likelihood of slippery slopes; and explores a variety of strategies for coping with slippery slopes.

    AB - Slippery slopes have been the topic of a spate of recent literature. In this Article, the authors provide a general theory for understanding and evaluating slippery slope arguments and their associated slippery slope events. The central feature of the theory is a structure of discussion within which all arguments take place. The structure is multilayered, consisting of decisions, rules, theories, and research programs. Each layer influences and shapes the layer beneath: Rules influence decisions, theories influence the choice of rules, and research programs influence the choice of theories. In this structure, slippery slope arguments take the form of meta-arguments, as they purport to predict the future development of arguments in the structure of discussion. Evaluating such arguments requires knowledge of the specific content of the structure of discussion itself. This Article, then presents four viable, types of slippery slope arguments; draws attention to four different factors that, other things equal, tend to increase the likelihood of slippery slopes; and explores a variety of strategies for coping with slippery slopes.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1842664360&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1842664360&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Review article

    VL - 51

    SP - 539

    EP - 592

    JO - UCLA Law Review

    JF - UCLA Law Review

    SN - 0041-5650

    IS - 2

    ER -