My understanding is the slippery slope fallacy is only related to deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning.

Quote from source:

The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory.

Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalizations, and deductive reasoning the other way around.

Inductive reasoning starts with observations about the world and then builds a theory about how the world works based on observed patterns.

Deductive reasoning starts with a theory and then breaks it down into testable claims that are either true or false. This usually takes the form of (premise + premise = conclusion) where if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

The slippery slope is a perfectly valid pattern to recognize when building a theory through inductive reasoning but it can be a problem when developing premises in deductive reasoning. Of course, this gets misunderstood and misused by internet warriors trying to score points while ignoring common sense.

Honestly, it's not that complicated. If you observe a pattern and can make accurate predictions based on that pattern, that's all you really need to know if something is likely true.

My understanding is the slippery slope fallacy is only related to deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning.

Quote from source:

The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory.

Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalizations, and deductive reasoning the other way around.

Inductive reasoning starts with observations about the world and then builds a theory about how the world works based on observed patterns.

Deductive reasoning starts with a theory and then breaks it down into testable claims that are either true or false. This usually takes the form of (premise + premise = conclusion) where if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

The slippery slope is a perfectly valid pattern to recognize when building a theory through inductive reasoning but it can be a problem when developing premises in deductive reasoning. Of course, this gets misunderstood and misused by internet warriors trying to score points while ignoring common sense.

My understanding is the slippery slope fallacy is only related to deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning.

Quote from source:

The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory.

Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalizations, and deductive reasoning the other way around.

Inductive reasoning starts with observations about the world and then builds a theory about how the world works based on observed patterns.

Deductive reasoning starts with a theory and then breaks it down into testable claims that are either true or false. This usually takes the form of (premise + premise = conclusion) where if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

The slippery slope is a perfectly valid pattern to recognize when building a theory through inductive reasoning but it can be a problem when developing premises in deductive reasoning.