骆驼的鼻子在帐篷里:规则、理论和滑坡

IF 2.3 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Ucla Law Review Pub Date : 2002-11-15 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.352981
M. Rizzo, D. Whitman
{"title":"骆驼的鼻子在帐篷里:规则、理论和滑坡","authors":"M. Rizzo, D. Whitman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.352981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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 (SSAs) and their associated slippery slope events (SSEs). The central feature of the theory is a structure of discussion within which all arguments take place. The structure is multi-layered, 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, SSAs take the form of meta-arguments, as they purport to predict the future development of arguments in the structure. Evaluating such arguments requires having knowledge of the specific content of the structure of discussion itself. The Article then presents four viable types of slippery slope argument, 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.","PeriodicalId":53555,"journal":{"name":"Ucla Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2002-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.352981","citationCount":"59","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Camel's Nose is in the Tent: Rules, Theories and Slippery Slopes\",\"authors\":\"M. Rizzo, D. Whitman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.352981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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 (SSAs) and their associated slippery slope events (SSEs). The central feature of the theory is a structure of discussion within which all arguments take place. The structure is multi-layered, 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, SSAs take the form of meta-arguments, as they purport to predict the future development of arguments in the structure. Evaluating such arguments requires having knowledge of the specific content of the structure of discussion itself. The Article then presents four viable types of slippery slope argument, 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ucla Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.352981\",\"citationCount\":\"59\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ucla Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.352981\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ucla Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.352981","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

摘要

滑坡一直是最近大量文献的主题。在这篇文章中,作者提供了一个理解和评估滑坡论点(SSAs)及其相关滑坡事件(ses)的一般理论。该理论的中心特征是一个讨论的结构,所有的争论都发生在这个结构中。其结构是多层的,由决策、规则、理论和研究计划组成。每一层都会影响并塑造下一层:规则影响决策,理论影响规则的选择,研究项目影响理论的选择。在这个结构中,ssa采用元参数的形式,因为它们旨在预测结构中参数的未来发展。评价这样的论点需要对讨论结构本身的具体内容有所了解。文章随后提出了四种可行的滑坡论证类型,提请注意四个不同的因素(其他条件相同)往往会增加滑坡的可能性,并探讨了应对滑坡的各种策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Camel's Nose is in the Tent: Rules, Theories and Slippery Slopes
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 (SSAs) and their associated slippery slope events (SSEs). The central feature of the theory is a structure of discussion within which all arguments take place. The structure is multi-layered, 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, SSAs take the form of meta-arguments, as they purport to predict the future development of arguments in the structure. Evaluating such arguments requires having knowledge of the specific content of the structure of discussion itself. The Article then presents four viable types of slippery slope argument, 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ucla Law Review
Ucla Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: In 1953, Chief Justice Earl Warren welcomed the UCLA Law Review''s founding volume by stating that, “[t]o a judge, whose decisions provide grist for the law review mill, the review may be both a severe critique and a helpful guide.” The UCLA Law Review seeks to publish the highest quality legal scholarship written by professors, aspiring academics, and students. In doing so, we strive to provide an environment in which UCLA Law Review students may grow as legal writers and thinkers. Founded in December 1953, the UCLA Law Review publishes six times per year by students of the UCLA School of Law and the Regents of the University of California. We also publish material solely for online consumption and dialogue in Discourse, and we produce podcasts in Dialectic.
期刊最新文献
How Constitutional Norms Break Down Invoking Common Law Defenses in Immigration Cases Slap leather! Legal culture, wild Bill Hickok, and the gunslinger myth The Rugged Individual's Guide to the Fourth Amendment: How the Court's Idealized Citizen Shapes, Influences, and Excludes the Exercise of Constitutional Rights Community in Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1