Talk:Moralistic fallacy

How

How is what Pinker wrote an example of the strawman fallacy? Mcc1789 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I figured someone ought to respond.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Wishful_Thinking oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Normativity

While I think mention of normativity somewhere in the article makes sense, be it baked into a subsection, linking outwards to the language or rhetoric category, etc, I think reverting my last addition on it was a good move (credit goes to FCP). I left "WIP" in the edit note to underscore that while the concept of normativity itself isn't irrelevant to this fallacy by any standard, that ill-formed chunk of text in the summary made the article look like a walking candy apple. I'll figure something out some other time. PS. If anyone's planning to expand it to a Gold article, toss in normativity somewhere in your blueprint (be it on the article or on another article with proper reference). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a new public policy example

Obviously we'll have to wait and see whether privatizing the space industry really actually works, but it's limping along pretty well as it is. If I can think of something better I'll go ahead and replace it, but the floor's open. Jus' sayin' B) talk 19:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Much later comment here: Citing the “privatisation of space exploration” is also problematic, given that it is directly or indirectly supported by public coffers, from the actual launch facilities, over various grants, to tax credits and sweetheart deals. I am reminded of the COVID-19 vaccines that have ended up being associated in the public discourse with the private companies that patented them, while the vast majority of the actual investment costs were provided for by mainly governments with some help from various foundations, rather than the pharmaceutical companies. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Dangerous topics

So I want to know if I should add in the below paragraph to this article, which relates to the origin of the term "moralistic fallacy".

The term "moralistic fallacy" was coined by biologist Bernard Davis, who was upset about how biology was unable to do significant research into the study of intelligence and genetics. (Reference: Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press) The reason being that on one side, racists and the like would crowd the field in order to scrounge up evidence for how their ethnicity was inherently "better", but counter to this were various flavors of egalitarian who would categorically deny any significant link between genes and intelligence. Both were committing the fallacy of assuming that the way the world should be is the way that it is, whether the "should" is "genes are the primary determiner of intelligence" or "intelligence is mostly independent of genes".

It's obviously going into dangerous territory, which is why I'm bringing it up here instead of adding directly. CorruptUser (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Welp, going to install it. CorruptUser (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)