Talk:Appeal to nature
Contents |
[edit] Is this the naturalistic fallacy?
Sometimes I've encountered arguments of the type "X is the natural behaviour of Y, therefore Y should do X" (for example, vegans claiming that humans are herbivores by nature). Another type of argument stops at the first clause: "X is a natural trait of Y" (essentialism?). Are these forms of the naturalistic fallacy? Anyway, the article needs expansion.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- It turns out that we have an article on Essentialism that sent me to Biological determinism.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Disagree with the definition
We say:
- The naturalistic fallacy uses the description of how the world "is" to infer how it "ought" to be. Essentially, an argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduces a new term in the conclusion, a logical fallacy.
I think this is a bad definition. It would be more accurate to say:
- The naturalistic fallacy uses the description of how the world "WAS" to infer how it "ought" to be.
But I don't even like that one very much either. Would it not be better to say something like:
- The naturalistic fallacy maintains that anything which has been produced by the humanly untouched environment to be "good" and anything which has been processed in some way by humanity to be bad.
I would change it myself but as it re-thrusts the article substantially I thought it better to comment first.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 20:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me. ТyrannisPlead 20:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm better with your choice #2. I was trying to fix the definition since it's also widely known as the is/ought fallacy. Whatever we write, we should have a redirect from something like "is/ought argument". I think if you look up any description of this fallacy, is/ought is part of the argument. What say everyone? This isn't Wikipedia (thank the fucking FSM), so I defer to expertise. I am linking to many of these arguments to my website which has a Logical Fallacy FAQ! I prefer accuracy in description then my lame changes. :) SkepticalRaptor®™ 20:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually #3 is an Appeal to nature. SkepticalRaptor®™ 20:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Are they not more-or-less the same thing? I would suggest that our current definition confuses things with the "is–ought fallacy".--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 21:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Although the WP article speaks of both.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 21:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- (ecx3)The "is-ought" wording is imported from Hume's law. The naturalistic fallacy was once associated with Moore's arguments about the definition of "good" but today it's pretty much used synonymously with the is-ought problem. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems though (and somewhat to my surprise) that the Naturalistic fallacy s now associated with both. I suppose we should go the WP route and list both on this page. Interestingly, their talk page has a sort of similar discussion. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 21:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have always known them to be completely different. It's like the Fallacy of Division and composition, they are related but mirror images of each other. SkepticalRaptor®™ 23:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have also always thought them to be completely different. But my understanding was a mirror image of yours. :-) --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 10:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have always known them to be completely different. It's like the Fallacy of Division and composition, they are related but mirror images of each other. SkepticalRaptor®™ 23:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- It seems though (and somewhat to my surprise) that the Naturalistic fallacy s now associated with both. I suppose we should go the WP route and list both on this page. Interestingly, their talk page has a sort of similar discussion. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 21:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Are they not more-or-less the same thing? I would suggest that our current definition confuses things with the "is–ought fallacy".--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 21:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually #3 is an Appeal to nature. SkepticalRaptor®™ 20:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some sources (the Wikipedia article being one of them) that say the naturalistic fallacy is something markedly different from what is described in this article. What this article describes seems to be synonymous with a fallacious appeal to nature (or phrased without using the word "nature", the is-ought problem). 84.198.53.190 (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Post-move improvement
The article needs more improvement. One area of improvement that I see is making the "pothole" links explicit - at the moment, a lot of the argument can be understood only if you read the code of the page, or if you try to follow or hover over every link. Another is adding real-life examples (cited, of course :)), noting that it's not limited to alt-med ("being gay is unnatural") and generally limit the reflexive altie-bashing.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Increased confusion
There are two different ideas that sometimes go under the same name.
- Naturalistic fallacy - what ever is natural is good and healthy. Chemicals are evil.
- Naturalistic fallacy - however the world is the way the world is supposed to be is preordained and therefore morally good.
I had tried to clarify the article to separate these concepts but they have become confused again by this move. We need to clearly explain both concepts.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- This article is about 1. The term "naturalistic fallacy" and its other meaning are explained in the section with the same name, which links to the is-ought problem article (and this arrangement is almost identical to your disambiguation effort). If you wish to further elaborate on 2, expand the "naturalistic fallacy" page (and move there the link to the philosophical encyclopedia).--ZooGuard (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. You should have gone to the talk page before making the change where you will see the point is already under debate. It's all yours now.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was under debate - 8 months ago. The last time I "went to the talk page" to propose a change, my suggestion stood alone and unnoticed for a month. So yeah, change is effected by those who take the initiative. Given the current activity of User:Krej, and the general lack of philosophical inclination of the userbase, it was really unlikely that the discussion of the term in philosophy would expand beyond disambiguation any time soon.
- So, what exactly makes the current article more confusing, according to you? The name change itself (naturalistic fallacy -> appeal to nature)? My changes to the lead? The "naturalistic fallacy" section? Have you read the Fallacy Files page I added to the External Links?--ZooGuard (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. You should have gone to the talk page before making the change where you will see the point is already under debate. It's all yours now.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Does this sound like a shoehorned jab at religion to anyone else?
Various beliefs in good old days, and in particular the Christian idea of original sin also give credence to this fallacy by contextualizing the development of civilization as a process of decay, rather than a process of progress. Was this written by Proxima Centauri? It's got a half-point to it, but it seems to be a case of truthiness. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 14:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- It was our resident nukie.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Appeal to Nature
Wouldn't appealing to Nature mean citing one of its studies?--Krejtalk 17:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)