Talk:Naturalistic fallacy
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naturalistic fallacy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contradiction in article
[edit]The beginning of the article warns against confusing the Naturalistic Fallacy with the Appeal to Nature. It says: "The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with a fallacious appeal to nature, a mistaken claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural)." However, in the section entitled "Appeal to Nature", the article quotes Professor Steven Pinker who says: "The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good." Thus, the quotation from Professor Pinker directly contradicts the warning at the beginning of the article. Should something be done about this? 2604:2000:C6A1:B900:F584:ECC5:541E:BAC7 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed it. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have now deleted the appeal to nature para as out of place and confusing here. It has its own article. Pinker was just blatantly wrong in fact. We can't print everybody who gets it utterly wrong, even when they are professors.(Incidentally, I had to change from Esedowns, just as that came from Seadowns.) Liscaraig (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: PHIL 390 Contemporary Philosophy
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rrobertrowan (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Avadauer123.
— Assignment last updated by RudyCarnap (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not actually a fallacy
[edit]From an evolutionary perspective, this isnt even a fallacy. Evolution was a long experiment. That which exists now is that which adequately preserves its own existence. To assume that things ought to be any way other than the way they became as the outcome of this long experiment is some sort of nirvana fallacy. What's called here a fallacy is juat the logical null hypothesis in most cases, and the far more common fallacy (which doesn't even have a name as far as I know) is the inverse assertion: That the result of this evolution experiment is presumably wrong and that what ought it be is a totally different (utopian) ideal. ~2025-31859-35 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)