There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Is–ought problem
Question[edit]
Does Ayn Rand's nontraditional solution to the is-ought gap merit a mention? https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page1 — Unsigned, by: RMF18 / talk / contribs
Proposal for an article on 'The Naturalistic Fallacy.'[edit]
The Naturalistic Fallacy is, I believe, a significant and important concept. However, it is often confused with the so called "Appeal to nature fallacy" and the so called "Is-ought problem." Moreover, the subsection in this article is, I believe, too brief. Therefore, I propose to create an article on it, an article which should help distinguish it from its sibling-fallacies and elucidate its import. I am aware, due to ignorance on my part, that this may not be the right place to make this proposal, so please feel free to correct me. Leucippus (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Leucippus Go right ahead and create the new article if you like. Please use the draft namespace for new articles under construction, that is, start here: Draft:Naturalistic fallacy. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris Thanks for the helpful information and guidance. Leucippus (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)