Talk:Appeal to nature/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Rational Arguments

A well published, critical but balanced reference for the rational argument section at last! [2]. A short pdf covering these issues:

• Moral views about nature—claims that nature or a natural state of affairs possesses some special value—are important in a range of contemporary debates.
• Three kinds of social debates feature moral views about nature: those about what we might be able to do to human nature using medical biotechnology, those about modifying plants and animals using agricultural biotechnology, and those about protecting the environment.
• Disagreements over what we mean by “nature” and whether views on it are really about something else—such as keeping the status quo—pose a challenge to moral views about nature.
• Examples drawn from the natural world and from the history of scientific and technological progress show that appeals to nature cannot serve as across-the-board moral laws that trump all others.
• Moral views about the environment have already led to policy aimed at environmental protection and preservation, but moral views about biotechnology may not be as easily enacted.
• Some moral views about nature might be better left to nongovernmental organizations.

Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Walkinxyz (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

First Paragraph

"An appeal to nature is a type of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a source of intelligibility for its claims, and which relies on that understanding for its outcome. To appeal to nature in an argument is to argue from a premise or premises implied by the concept of nature being invoked in that argument."

Can someone tell me what this means, its completely incoherent to me! I was hoping for the first paragraphy might provide a general intro and abstract of the whole article, this does neither. BerserkerBen (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Paragraph

I've deleted this paragraph for lack of citations and because it seems (at least to me, but I'll acknowledge that I have the opposite bias that I'm claiming this paragraph has) quite strongly POV.

The underlying theme is that the human synthesis of natural materials and invention of new materials is fallible in unpredictable ways that pre-existing natural ones (which have developed through evolutionary process) have been naturally selected against. It is argued that due to the lack of natural selection, the more unnatural a thing is, the greater its potential for disruption to natural systems and organisms [3]. For instance Cocaine is a chemical extraction of the coca plant, whose leaves are chewed as a medicine and tonic in traditional Andean culture. The most dangerous form of the drug crack cocaine is the form which is most processed and altered from the natural source. The same relationship is present between opium, heroin and freebase heroin, and between cannabis its derivative preparations and skunk (a cannabis strain selectively bred for potency).

Basically, this entire paragraph is itself an appeal to nature, and needs serious citation for its claims. "The underlying theme" is probably right-out, since that's not especially what the article, or even the section, is about. Moreover, the claim that natural products have been "naturally selected" against having unpredictable side-effects is (at least in my opinion) preposterous, and if true needs to be heavily sourced. The single link to an external site does not appear to me to be a notable or reliable source, since it seems to be a random pro-nature, anti-artificial website with an unattributed editorial (I think; it's unclear if the graphic in the upper right about "A book by ..." is referring to the article below) on it.

I'm no Wikipedian, am only vaguely familiar with the rules, but I'm pretty sure this paragraph is, at least as-is, inappropriate. I'd be willing to debate this some, but ultimately I'd sooner allow those with more Wikipedia-editing experience to cast judgment on it. —DragoonWraith (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph included a well qualified source, but i agree would benefit from more. I do not understand why the concept is surprising to seemingly many. Natural selection produces life - as amazing as it is. Life 'adapts' through natural selection over time, this involves making better use of resources and building resistance to problems once they have arisen and persist. Factors and substances with ie. "no history of significant consumption" have not been involved in the process of natural selection. Lifeforms may need to adapt or resist to 'the new', and natural selection takes time. This is what the paragraph is saying (in response to the previous points put that "natural" is irrelevant to safety concerns.) Put simply, what does natural selection do/achieve?

I agree this section could do with more work, but a few critical eyes have been over it and I do not think it should be removed, the ~"nature dismissive" paragraphs could do with improvement too and there is some substantial source in the section above to be added... (pdf government review guidelines on naturals & synthetics..) Good Regards Lisnabreeny (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of Natural Selection

I deleted this section; it basically anecdotally claimed that natural things are often better than unnatural things, and that this may be explained by the fact that the benefits of natural things have been fine-tuned by natural selection. I thought this was a misleading and unnecessary section; citing the downsides of baby formula versus a mother's breast milk, for example, while ignoring the benefits of, for example, tool-making, or agriculture. It's impossible to generally claim that "natural" things are better than "unnatural" things, even if those could be defined, making this section bunk, and the natural selection explanation also did not make sense. Natural selection is responsible for humans' cognitive ability to construct "unnatural" things, thus the process doesn't favour what we consider to be "natural" things over "unnatural" things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajalidocious (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I sigh at the use of quotes around the words "natural" or "unnatural" in a discussion appeals to nature. If we are to think properly about appeals to nature, is it not necessary to grant this word's meaning in context? This section did not only include anecdotes/examples, it also included a decent reference to a case where natural selection's action and effect is valued explicitly in an area of biochemical safety. More examples and references can be found for this particular precautionary principle, in cave exploration, international quarantine... Natural selection is an essential mechanism in nature and it does gives us here some context to disguard those scare quotes. The point was referenced, exemplified with strong examples, and should be acceptable in an appeal to nature article, that natural things are in fact selected, in a special way, which has special characteristics -life supporting characteristics -which can be considered or "appealed to". Humans cognitive ability is relevant Cajalidocious, but what we lack does not mean the subjects we attempt to appreciate (or not) are lacking. Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree still at the rationale here; the stated view of natural selection is wholly anthropocentric. Natural selection will increase the fitness of every organism, but it doesn't fine-tune them for human consumption. Things are selected with "life supporting characteristics" but not human life-supporting characteristics. Natural selection may be responsible for a certain plant's poison being extremely toxic, for example, or, say, a lion being able to chase down and maul a person, but it certainly is not occurring to any benefit of humans, who are the topic of discussion in this section. The best you can possibly say is "sometimes natural things are better for humankind than attempted substitutes, and sometimes they aren't," and there will be examples for both but no possible relevant conclusion. That's why I think this section is irrelevant and misleading, and I hope you'll agree. (edit: the same goes for the Examples of Synthetic Design Failures section. Like I mentioned above, if you list examples supporting the appeal to nature like BSE and infant formula, it's one-sided and misleading to ignore the incalculably more important counter-examples like tools, medicine and agriculture) Cajalidocious (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point; however you may not be taking into account human natural selection, which wholly defines which characteristics should do best to support human life. In other words, whilst not all aspects of nature perform some function benefiting humans, those with which humans have come to harness and surround themselves with over time would logically be of greatest benefit. – NuclearDuckie (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Cajalidocious human consumption is 'anthropocentric' here. Natural selection occurs over suitable periods of time in all life regardless of how we classify species or populations, and it has occurred to sustain and develop life, overall and generally, until we are alive and able to examine its complexity today. I do not think it can successfully be argued that natural selection has not and does not continue to, benefit all life, including humans. I read this statement is the best that you are willing to say on the subject: "sometimes natural things are better for humankind than attempted substitutes, and sometimes they aren't" - however the validity and necessity of inductive reasoning in science demonstrates that we can say and show more. Concepts and understandings of nature, underpin (at least) theories of evolution, natural selection, genetics... Such concepts and appeals are the subject of this article -set by it's name.

We can propose how human differs from other living things but not that we have not come from and are still deeply embedded in this matrix of natural history (with other life). We can not remove ourselves from the equation simply because we conceive of ourselves as exceptional in certain ways to other animals. But I would really like to see more explaination and refs along the line of Baggini's view and the basis of 'rational' rejections of appeals to nature, i have searched this year...

Up until spring this year it was strongly put and very weakly referenced or explained here, that appeals to nature are inherently fallacious -essentially misleading and irrelevant to reason themselves. These claims survive in the present text, worded awkwardly in the 'rational argument' and advertising section. I would like to see the weakly put criticism of appealing to nature strengthened by improving it, rather than by removing the relevant ~antitheses. Perhaps the points of consideration for natures' strengths/good qualities seem one-sided, because the truth is one-sided - nature (properly contextualised) is itself an illuminating and valuable concept worth noting/appealing to? Perhaps not, so where is this well refuted? -let's include it...

Regards, Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro incomprehensible

The intro is a combination of words which taken in pairs are OK, but the meaning of the resulting sentences completely evades an average reader. Can someone fix this? Lorem Ip (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The article wants much improved, but i think the intro was very well composed. Do you have a different or clearer meaning in mind? The philosophical concept of appealing to nature is not simple because nature_(philosophy) is not one simple idea. The intro has to communicate at least 3 things to an "average reader" to be accurate. i.what is "an appeal" to something, ii.what is "nature". iii. how the term "appeal to nature" is carried somewhat stylishly in other subjects and pop cultures. Truth is because of "appeal to natures" various meanings, a simpler but accurate introduction illuded the writers who fixed the article up last year -after i put the old version up for deletion. Regards Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• It may be well composed, but it is incomprehensible; in particular it does not address yout three points. Please explain me which parts the intro explains i.what is "an appeal" to something, ii.what is "nature". iii. how the term "appeal to nature" is carried somewhat stylishly in other subjects and pop cultures.
• Usage examples are equally useless. For example, what the heck I have to learn from the phrase "The appeal to nature in early twentieth-century architectural discourse." Examples must be the ones of specific cases of "appeal to nature" not just examples of this phrase uttered out of context. Then, by means of example, I may start to understand something.
• The intro must be a summary of the article content, i.e., give some minimal explanation. I fail to understand how a tautological phrase "To appeal to nature in an argument is to argue from a premise or premises implied by the concept of nature being invoked in that argument." can explain anything.
• Because of "appeal to nature's" various meanings, these meanigs must be carefully explained, with proper references. Lorem Ip (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that may edits may look drastic. I am willing to explain them in more detail. At the same time, I would want clear explanation of the relevance of any text added. Clearly, there is lots of buzz around the phrases "natural product", "nature", etc. However this article must explain the term "appeal to nature" using the references which explicitely discuss this term, not just use it. The same goes with examples. Otherwise all this will be a loosely-knitted original essay, from Pythagoras to Barack Obama. Lorem Ip (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. The article intro was hacked out last year by a philosophy professor i found enlightening, after a review where i had asked for the article to be deleted because it was just a load of buzz about 'natural products' etc. Turns out it is actually a philosophically renown phrase of sorts, and a literary one too perhaps, and it is used in certain debates. It turned out a very tricky term to contain which is why the intro is fundamental. What is your understanding of the term lorem? Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The lede

I find the latest rephrasing of the lede a regression. It contains an obvious error and removed valuable links. I shall probably restore it to the version which was worked out by Walkinxyz which i personally find expertly composed. Lisnabreeny (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Image

What is the purpose of the image of a leaf on top of the article? Usually the top image serves for immediate illuartation of a topic. This is a philosophical article, so the image must illustrate a philosophical idea. What is more, since the waters are murky, there must be a reference or other solid reason to demonstrate that the image indeed illustrates what it is claimed to. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a debate about the image last year. There was alot of debate last year - more debate than article. I like the image and find it suitable. The images contributor justified it thusly:

A non-logged in user deleted the image that I put in, which was not uploaded just because it was public domain, but because it is an aesthetic appeal to nature that met the following criteria:

Intangible concepts can be illustrated; for example, a cat with its claws out portrays aggression, while a roadside beggar juxtaposed with a Mercedes-Benz shows social inequality.

See Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement

and

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic.

See Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature

Just because it is an aesthetic appeal to nature, that illustrates the (potentially) intangible nature of such an appeal, does not mean it is simply "decorative". Walkinxyz (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

-There has much relevant discussion of such things which might have been archived too quickly. Lisnabreeny (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that other images might serve these purposes better - unless anyone objects, I will replace it with this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leopard_kill_-_KNP_-_001.jpg#file and include an explanation along the lines of "An example of an appeal to nature would be that because animals are killed for food in nature, it is justifiable for humans to kill and eat animals." The improvements I believe this would make are that (1) it helps to explain what an appeal to nature would be (2) it helps to illustrate why such an appeal might be problematic, by showing nature "red in tooth and claw".

If the leaf makes an "aesthetic appeal to nature", this is confusing because this form of appeal to nature isn't actually discussed in the article (although this might be an avenue for improvement - the emphasis on the beauty of the natural world by various art movements, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.35 (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Restructure?

I propose that the article be restructed along the following lines:

1. Introduction a. What is an A2N

2. In History a. Appeal to nature in ancient philosophy i. Western ii. Non-Western b. Treatment of nature in classical Christian thought i. Aquinas ii. Augustine c. Refutation of appeal to nature in modern thought i. Kant ii. Hobbes d. Return in reactions to modernity i. Romanticism ii. Political Conservatism iii. Environmentalism

3. Flaws and utility a. Flaws i. Constitutes logical fallacy – link to naturalistic fallacy b. Utility i. For regulation - Nature can be linked with past use/safety ii. Aesthetic appeal of nature

4. Current usage a. Political and social rhetoric b. Advertising

Before I go ahead with this, I would like to know what some people think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.16.35 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Logical Fallacy

The fact is that Appeals to Nature, are not as yet claimed to be fallacious by any philosophy textbook level or peer reviewed sources. There are an increasing number blogs and self published claims of that type but this article under WikiPhilosophy Project aspires and somewhat alludes to be philosophically correct. So to claim or argue that all Appeals to Nature are essentially wrong and fallacious, please cite a reputable reference. This issue was resolved by multiple editors including an experienced philosopher last year following a review and should be in archived Talk. Regards Lisnabreeny (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am disappointed and surprised to come back to this article after a few months and find it significantly altered for the worse. Looking at the edit history, I find most of these deleterious changes were effected on the 4th December by Lisnabreeny, with no justification apart from his/her opinion that "the appeal to nature is not a logical fallacy". How this relates to such IMO vandalism as deleting large swathes of content regarding the regulation of "natural" products and the replacement of the photograph of the leaf (see above for where I actively solicited discussion on this, and got no reply) is anyone's guess. I have since reverted the article as far as possible to the version immediately preceding Lisnabreeny's changes. I have tried to retain constructive edits which have been made since then (and some unconstructive ones, for the sake of balance). If any constructive editors feel I have unfairly removed their content, please go ahead and put it back. Needless to say, unless I receive authoritative instructions not to do so, I will revert any edits made without adequate reasoning which simply make the article less helpful and more confusing. Regards, 124.158.16.35 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hereby I am giving you an authoritative instruction not to revert "any edits" without discussion. If someone violates wikipedia rules, it is not a carte-blanche to do the same. If you think someone's edits are nonconstructive and the person refuses to engage in a discussion, there are ways of dispute resolution. "Revert wars" are not among them. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

- I must apologize Staszek, and to FirstPrimeOfApophis for my bad form and my confusion that the changes made were supported. I will try to explain and correct the article in a bit. It does/did need work. Merry Hols Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I refute your unpleasantly made accusation of waging a revert war. The previous composition discussed at length between several editors including an expert, has been replaced with unreferenced - derogatory claims against nature and Philosophies varied appeals to it, which were discovered in deletion review and discussion last spring to be only sourceable to blogs and self-published collections of fallacies. The finely worded lede describing the terms meaning in respectful philosophical language has been replaced by such unpublished, peer reviewless opinion. The pleasant, artistic appeal to nature illustration, has been replaced with an insensitively viscous image and allegory. What has happened to the page, almost amounts to vandalism.

I will be adding pov, citation tags to it and seeking expert attention shortly. Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

For purposes of identification, I am 124.158.16.35 (at least as regards this article; it's a shared IP). Regarding the image, we are clearly not going to agree on this, so let's get some more contributors to offer comment so we can establish a consensus. I have rewritten the lead to make it less editorial and hopefully clearer, and included a citation stating that the appeal to nature is part of the naturalistic fallacy. I have also reorganised the sections so the article is more in line with other articles on logical fallacies e.g. argument from authority. I also removed the sections on regulation and related concepts, as the latter are linked to directly from the article and the former wasn't really serving an instructive purpose. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thankyou for your attention to this. The reference which you have provided on this interpretation of what the term 'appeal to nature' means, is insubstantial. It is a contentious description of naturalistic fallacy itself, with a breif treatment of 'appeal to nature' in a subsection. It is not peer reviewed. It is self published within private university web space. The interpretation is derogatory to forms of naturalism, and the reasonability of 'nature lovers' in general. The most extensive peer reviewed listing of fallacies available on the internet today does not list an 'appeal to nature' fallacy or anything similar to it. Here is a paragraph from naturalistic fallacy:

"The fallacy would also occur if one argued from the natural to the moral as follows: since women are naturally capable of bearing and nursing children, they ought to be the primary caregivers of children. There is considerable disagreement among philosophers regarding what sorts of arguments the term “Naturalistic Fallacy” applies to, and even whether it is a fallacy at all."

Since this article has once again been changed from a respectful philosophical explaination of what 'appeal to nature' can mean, to a specific derogatory interpretation, it must indicate at least one notable source source of that perjorative idea. If it cannot do that for the idea it is an originally researched point of view, and as such is not worthy of inclusion in the article, much less to replace the lede which was authored last spring by a post grad student of a famous philosopher FYI. Please consider this situation carefully. Regards, Lisnabreeny (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly source stating that the appeal to nature is NOT a logical fallacy. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3nk5Lq2hY9EC&pg=PA152&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false. The reason for this is that a logical fallacy refers to the validity of reasoning from a set of given premises, not the validity of the premises themselves. X is unnatural, what is unnatural is bad, therefore X is bad, is not actually incorrect reasoning, and the only thing that stops it from constituting a valid argument are its invalid premises. Instead, we should describe as a "false belief".

I will edit the intro to reflect this, also: (1) We need to spell out that the belief that what is natural is good is false by dint of an understanding of nature and what is "good" as incompatible - i.e. any worldview which combines a modern understanding of the natural world with humane values. (2) We also need to spell out that the appeal to nature might NOT even be a false belief where nature and the good are defined in a similar way e.g. in non-naturalistic understandings of existence or where what is "good" is behaviour similar to that seen in the animal kingdom e.g. social darwinism. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the text of your (only) reliable source FirstPrime? I can not access it in the article which appears to cover GE Moores "naturalistic fallacy" -which you must understand concerns a specific appeal to nature but not the wideranging phrase "appeal to nature".

The sources used to substantiate this articles proposed meaning of "appeal to nature" and the involved dismissal of nature as an intelligible concept (for appeals) are not encyclopedic. This idea of appeals to nature has no peer reviewed or textbook sources, Consider this fact, and think about why you are trying to state something in WP which has never been stated by a reliable source. It does seem to be a widely held opinion that is variously repeated in dozens of unreviewed web collections. But it is not philosophical theory. Fallacy studies are not philosophical theory either, although some canonical textbooks and reviewed sources examine them, there is no theory of fallacies and no reliable sources propose the "appeal to nature fallacy" which you along with many other as yet unreviewed sources find convincing. This rewrite of the article to a contentious opinion resting on insubstantial sources can not be supported by Wikipedia. I am going put this article up for review soon if this continues, you have a chance to improve your sources or retract what you have done, and perhaps reconsider the meanings of natures appeals. (You know ~ in this age of AGW and pollution and novel activity and resource shortages... etc)You should not be trying to cast aspersions in WP of sophistry, fallacy, hollow rhetoric or whatever , on everyone who might attempt, or be seen to appeal to nature in discussion or argument - without a reliable source for those assertions and impartial presentation of them. You have been doing this for months now in this article and removed the intelligent lede worked out previously by people with an understanding of philosophical language.

Here is a reliable source dealing with appeals to nature, which "attempts to clarify appeals to nature by proposing a novel interpretaion of them" JSTOR Biomedical Ethics, Public Health Risk Assessment and the Naturalistic Fallacy

An interesting quote concerning a particular appeal to nature, from a canonical source - the source of much of this confusion perhaps, in G.E.Moore's Principia Ethica he writes :"Nature does indeed set limits to what is possible; she does control the means we have at our disposal for obtaining what is good;"

Lisnabreeny (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The full text is as follows, and the highlights are my own:

“The term naturalistic fallacy is occasionally misapplied to another view - namely that that one commits the fallacy by moving from “X is natural” to “X is good”… Again, this bears no resemblance to Moore’s fallacy, though he no doubt would have agreed that it is a gross mistake. But a straightforward connection between naturalness (under some specification) and moral goodness is not something any serious scholar would endorse anyway, though occasionally one hears non-scholars pressing it. Whatever its popular appeal, it is clearly a false and silly thing to say – though it should be pointed out that being false and silly is insufficient to warrant the honorific “fallacy”. A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, not a false belief. If someone thinks that homosexuality is unnatural, and that all unnatural things are wrong, and that therefore homosexuality is wrong, his reasoning is flawless, and he commits no fallacy; it is just the false beliefs expressed in his premises that are at fault.”

--So this is relevant only to your thoughts on the matter. Your only reliable reference does not refer to the phrase "Appeal to nature" Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be making four arguments at the moment: (1) That there are multiple meanings of Appeal to Nature which are not considered (2) That the sourcing for references is inadequate (3) That the article as it stands is unsympathetic to appeals to nature (4) That the contributions other editors and I have made are worse than the format used previously.

Regarding each of these in turn:

(1) You have so far provided no other meanings for the term "appeal to nature" other than the one universally used in all sources, “encyclopaedic” or otherwise: an argument that a phenomenon is good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural. If you have any sources at all that the "appeal to nature" could or does mean something else, I would be interested to see them, even if they were not suitable for inclusion. You mentioned earlier an aesthetic appeal to nature, which might be an interesting avenue to pursue for a different article, but this clearly refers to something quite different (namely nature as a subject in arts).

Wrong. You are arguing bindly here. The article itself includes a meaning of the from a quite reliable academic source. "Thus the appeal to nature tended to mean an appeal to the nature of man treated as a source for norms of conduct." -Contrast that with your introduction "... is tactic in which a phenomenon is described as desirable merely because it is natural" Your intro is insensible to the decent source. Also the article included 2 examples from journals informing its wider usage. And just back in this discussion i referenced a journal article which seeks to clarify the subject explicitly -illustrating that is not a 'tactic' or diversion or fallacy or any of the things you have claimed in edits so far. So your objections and questions here are completely wanting. Also to understand what appeal to nature can mean in philosophy and literature generally, you have to understand what appeals are. You do not seem to be considering the term with any familiarity of what appeals are in philosophical text.Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(2) I agree it would be nice to have many more journal articles, etc to use as sources. The problem we have is that because the appeal to nature is not generally taken seriously by educated adults, professional philosophers will by and large not waste time refuting it. Those that do, like Baggini, will tend to have a specific interest in popular understandings and misconceptions, hence why his quote is so prominent.

I don’t accept that the quality of sources is lower for this article than for other fallacious appeals articles. This is not to say we shouldn’t be aiming higher, but merely that you seem to be setting a different standard for a similar article, and it is not really clear why.

Moreover you seem to apply these standards inconsistently. You are happy for self-published sources such as fallacyfiles to be used as references, but when I offer the publicly available academic materials compiled by a philosophy professor at a respected university, hosted on university webspace, you find this unacceptable because it is self-published. You state that you will only accept philosophy textbooks; fair enough, I provide a textbook citation, and you now this is somehow "insufficient" as well.

The JSTOR source you have found was extremely interesting to read, and IMO will be very useful for the article.

Obviously any textbook citation will need to be a typically good textbook, i think, that is a matter for source review. All sources can be debated. But you have not offered anything approaching a reliable source for your changes. There is no worth in saying you would like to have "many more journal articles" to substantiate your claims in the article. The problem is you do not have any reliable sources for the position which you have changed the article to. The fallacyfiles reference i never submitted and i found to be merely an example unreviewed and unpublished opinion of appeals to nature, and i have no problem with such opinions being revealed by the article - as opinions, ie beliefs, not as definitions or philosophical knowledge. Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(3) What you see as the “age of AGW and pollution and novel activity and resource shortages... etc” is also the age of the near-eradication of smallpox and polio, of public sanitation and clean water, of civil order and government, of electric lighting and mass education and declining infant mortality. For billions of people around the world, what is “natural” is suffering and incapacity, and “unnatural” interventions mean dignity and self-determination. The argument that something is bad because it is unnatural or good because it is natural must describe their lived experience as either (A) false or (B) unimportant. You are of course welcome to your opinions, but it is not reasonable to expect intelligent or well-adjusted people to have much sympathy for this view.

"For billions of people around the world, what is “natural” is suffering and incapacity" Here is your discussion, not theory or definition. To see nature as mostly a source of suffering, is to be blind to the source of life and health - This is my discussion. Discussion can feature in the article i think. But we have to remove unreliably referenceable ideas from the lede and most informative sections.Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

However, I agree that this article should refrain from editorial language, especially where terms such as “sophistic” have a particular meaning in the history of philosophical argument which is not applicable to the context in which they are used here. Which other examples are you referring to?

(4) The lede you are referring to was described by one editor last year as “a combination of words which taken in pairs are OK, but the meaning of the resulting sentences completely evades an average reader”. A sentence such as “An appeal to nature is a type of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a foundation of the reasoning of the argument” is not “philosophical language”, it is simply unclear and poorly worded. Also you have made various references to the alleged qualifications of the editor(s) who wrote your favoured version. These qualifications are unverifiable, so might as well be completely bogus, and even if they were not, are irrelevant to WP anyway. Rather than repeatedly say that you preferred previous versions, you would do better to either establish consensus that the article needs to be reverted back, or try to improve the current version.

FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed and resolved in favour of the academic composition. The subject of what 'appeals to nature' can be in philosophy and literature is complex and diverse. So if the lede is for this subject is simple, it will be misleading or ambiguous. If the reader can not understand philosophical text, WP has not the genius to make them understand the philsophical concept. But this is besides the point, you have changed the lede to something which is not similar but clearer, you changed it to something wrong. You messed this article up completely and put an image of a deer getting its throat ripped out beside it. Your criticism of the intelligently composed lede is disqualified by your extreme mistakes.Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Review what you have done to the article; what you have not understood about the references and opinion of the term, and correct or retract it without requiring more wasteful discussion and/or WP review please. I have been getting to know it for quite a while now and will try to improve the article when these unreviewed opinions of the general fallacy or unintelligibility of nature are given their proper place (a subsection identifying their lack of qualification and allowing counter arguments to balance point of view) Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

With respect, you are now merely rewriting what you wrote earlier and going off-topic, rather than responding to my replies. The only objection you raise of any merit is the need for a more reliable source for the definition, and I have actioned this. I sincerely hope you will accept George E. Moore as a reliable source. If not, we will need a third opinion. Your comments are also becoming increasingly personal and condescending in tone. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You have transformed this page for months now for a shrinking simplistic claim with no reliable reference, and ignored what the article and myself have tried to explained to you about the meaning of the phrase and need for you to supply a reliable source which substantiates what you wrote over the top of an intelligent lede composed with input from an expert. The famous article G.E. Moore you now link toward the whole of, to substantiate your opinion, does not substantiate it anywhere. I have already told you about it in this discussion - i do not believe you have read the source or identified any part of it which substantiates the idea you are putting. You can get an etext from its wikipedia page. Where do you find Moore claims that all appeals to nature are "rheotorical tactics" ? Principia Ethica involves the much written about "naturalistic fallacy" which is widely confused with appeals to nature --by people with no reliable reference for the position. I have rewritten important facts in this discussion, because you are simply passing over them and carrying on. When the situation is reviewed i am hopeful that your misunderstanding of the subject and neglect of WP requirements will be clear.Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"When the situation is reviewed" so have you already requested some form of review? If not, I will seek a third opinion.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'm responding to the request for a third opinion. Please sit sight, and I will get back to you in a while, after I have read through everything. Formerip (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Apologies, I have started on this but I need to go to bed and I'll have to come back to it tomorrow. Hope that's OK. Formerip (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking and take your time. I have found it to be a complex subject. A decent understanding of philosophical and other appeals is required, and of natures possible meanings. Apart from the previous intro, the page has never made great sense, it was a collection reliable and less reliable occurences of the phrase waiting to be made sense of. Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Here goes. Please remember that third opinions are not binding.

1. Firstly a general comment about the status of "appeals to nature" as a fallacious. A source is offered above (Richard Joyce) to support the suggestion that an appeal to nature cannot be considered fallacious because it doesn't contain an error in formal logic. I think this is a pedant's argument and can only be made on the basis of a narrow and incorrect definition of the word "fallacy". All reliable sources I have looked at consider that there are various types of fallacy, of which formal fallacy is one. Generally, any argument which may seem acceptable on the surface but which is seriously flawed is a fallacy. I can provide sourcing for that if it is useful.
2. I am not seeing sufficiently strong sourcing to show that "appeal to nature" is a term of art warranting a WP article (i.e. it is not clear that the topic passes WP:N). It is possible to google for the string and get returns, of course, but that does not show that it is a common term of art.
3. AFAICT, among the sources used, only Moore and someone's personal website (this doesn't look like it passes WP:RS) actually use the phrase "appeal to nature". The rest of the sources discuss a version of what is commonly called the naturalistic fallacy.
4. On that basis, I would suggest that the article should be merged with naturalistic fallacy.
5. If this is not done, then the issue of the word "fallacy" remains. This need sourcing. Moore is not enough for this, simply because the word is in contention between editors and we can't have a whole article based only on a single sentence from Principia Ethica and admitting no other information which is clearly about the topic in hand. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Formerip, thank you very much for this. As you point out, a large number of sources do discuss the flaws of the argument that "what is natural is good", but not all of them describe this using the term appeal to nature, e.g. the Joyce text. The Moore text was to indicate that the term "appeal to nature" describes this kind of argument. In your opinion, does the Moore text do this adequately?

Also, when you say "admitting no other information which is clearly about the topic in hand" are you saying this article (if it remains separate from the Naturalistic Fallacy) should incorporate other sources which discuss the argument that "what is natural is good" even if they do not specifically use the term appeal to nature?FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Appeal to nature" is very much valid a description of a certain type of the naturalistic fallacy, and I am certainly not going to suggest there is anything inadequate about GE Moore. However, something being valid as a descriptive phrase is not enough alone for it to pass WP:N. Naturalistic fallacy is the standard term, and we already have an article for it.

No, I don't think we should include material regarding the naturalistic fallacy which does not use the term appeal to nature in the article. Quite the reverse. If that material were excised from the article (as it should be), we would see a good illustration of why the article is not needed. It could simply be a redirect. Formerip (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration FormerIP. I think this term is today all at once a meaningful 'Term of Art' and of Philosophy and a colloquialism for a common mis/interpretation of Naturalistic fallacy (which has ideological/political angles).

As a term of Art significant references of its use existed in the article and some more in past discussion. I can recollect, around 10 uses found between reviewed titles, abstracts and texts. I will do the work to relist them here to help discussion in a while... (I have submitted many with no sensible recognition, even GE Moore uses the term repeatedly and sensibly in Principia Ethica)

Some references indicate its meaning, and also Philosophical understanding of 'appeal to' (to make sense with regard to) and 'nature' can inform its meaning. The antiquity and scope and position of 'nature' in the history of knowledge, make it not unusual that aterm has emerged which marks, natures inclusion in a consideration. It can contrast with other inclusions such as 'appeal to religion' but not exclusively because the meaning of the term stands on its own words. Nature has meaning, concepts of nature have potential for understanding (also distinct from religion).

Concepts of nature and their meaning continue to be a hotly proposed and contested consideration in all sort of modern situations. Without theory or review, the colloquialism 'appeal to nature (fallacy)' refutes the potential meaningfulness of nature in many situations. For the colloquialism, numerous common unreviewed references describe its meaning. The colloquialism is a lot more web visible and simply put and attractive to some, than the Artistic and Philosophical comprehension, so without enough other interested WP philosophy editors involvement, this page will always be susceptible to soapboxing of the unreviewed colloquial idea of the term; eclipsing the Art and Philosophy and masquerading as it. It is an unfortunate situation for wp to be involved in.

I have tried to garner attention for it spring 2011 and did find some but it waned and the encyclopedia page is being ~misconstrued again. Quite badly with the picture of an animal getting its throat torn out , illustrating the passion behind the colloquial position and the percieved negative inflection of the term.

I think the article does deserve a page of its own, but an intelligent one can only be written and maintained in the presence of agreement about the status of its colloquial meaning. The artistic / philosophical meaning needs protected by either a sufficient number of comprehending editors, or expert guidance with administrative protection. That might be easier to do in a combined Naturalistic Fallacy / Appeal to Nature article, where philosophy meanings of NF and AtN (which are different) and the ~dispersed one (which is quasi-applied to both) might be treated all three together. But then the conflict between the unreviewed meaning and the philosophical will have to be examined which will agitate proponents of the unreviewed ideas. Another approach would be to have two seperate articles each pertaining only to reviewed sources and not mention the unreviewed. That could be more diplomatic and less demanding. Lisnabreeny (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly fair to say that the naturalistic fallacy is prone to being casually redefined too narrowly. But assuming that this can be sourced, it is information that really belongs in the NF article.

Your aspirations for this article may be all well and good, but they surely can't be realistic in the absence of sourcing. It seems to me totally natural (excuse me...) that and article about something for which a reliably-sourced definition has not even been provided will be difficult to maintain in a satisfactory state.

AFAICT there are only really two options: either someone comes up with some decent sourcing, or the whole thing is carried over to naturalistic fallacy, where it won't be necessary to have sourcing to establish the use of a specific sense of the phrase "appeal to nature". Formerip (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand the difficulty which editors have had with sourcing and roughly understanding various notable occurrences of this phrase. I include a raw top 20 google books hits in a new section for clear demonstration of just how notable this term is.

I wonder if you would support me recalling the old article and rewriting it to see if that might help all get an agreeable understanding of it? (as per the ultimate purpose of a wp article) And help form agreement against more uncomprehending removal of content and addition of ideas without reliable sourcing. I can not promise a complete explaination, because it is too big, but i can provide a broad and quite well studied explaination of the term, example uses with good references, and even a fair representation of terms meaning with regard to argument and fallacies -- and with good reference. I would like to remove/avoid all contentious political/economic/commercial/ideological arguments or statements except possibly those insisted upon by editors with good references. Since we are in agreement that the current state of the article is not reliably sourced despite my numerous requests over months to do so, or revert, will you support me now in an attempt to fix and improve it? Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Appeal to Nature

First 20 Google Books results for "Appeal to Nature".

• Formac Pocketguide TO NATURE: Animals, Plants And Birds In New, Jeffrey C Domm - yr 2012 - 128 pages

"This full-colour book is the perfect companion for anyone who likes to take a close look at nature."

• The Morality Of Happiness, Julia Annas - yr 1995 - 502 pages

"However, this last point opens up the ancient APPEAL TO NATURE to another objection, namely that it is circular. ... If we APPEAL TO NATURE, only to find that to do so we have to distinguish between natural process and interference, and between ..."

• Beiträge Zur Antiken Philosophie: Festschrift Für Wolfgang Kullmann ,Brigitte Wilke Wolfgang Kullmann - yr 1997 - 275 pages

"The widespread rejection that has been the fate of the ethical APPEAL TO NATURE, at least in the twentieth century, is surely due in considerable part to the thought that it justifies the status quo, and has often been used to justify injustices."

• Infertility: A Crossroad Of Faith, Medicine, And Technology, Kevin Wm. Wildes - yr 1996 - 248 pages

"Any APPEAL TO NATURE as the basis of moral constraints depends on how nature is understood for the constraints that will be developed. Outside the ... At first glance many people will think that an APPEAL TO NATURE is sufficient for moral guidance."

• Choosing Life: A Dialogue On Evangelium Vitae, Kevin William Wildes, S.J., Alan C. Mitchell - yr 1997 - 272 pages

"Any APPEAL TO NATURE as the basis of moral constraints depends on how nature is understood for the constraints that will be developed. Outside the context of any particular moral framework, there will be numerous ways to understand nature"

• The Ideal Of NATURE: Debates About Biotechnology And The Environment, Gregory E. Kaebnick - yr 2011 - 232 pages

"The APPEAL TO NATURE as a reason for moral commendation and even moral obligation has existed throughout the ages, beginning with the Stoics and the Epicureans. It appears in Roman law, canon law, and in modern times in international ..."

• The Technological Unconscious In German Modernist: NATURE In... ,Larson Powell - yr 2008 - 256 pages

"The APPEAL TO NATURE is not only made by both sides of every conflict in the novel, whether Wang versus the Emperor (both claiming political legitimation),Wang versus Ma-noh (over the question of the sect's practice of chastity), or the Emperor ..."

• The APPEAL TO NATURE In Graeco-Roman And Early Christian Thought, William Richard Schoedel - yr 1963 - 1222 pages

• The Therapy Of Desire: Theory And Practice In Hellenistic Ethics, Martha Craven Nussbaum - yr 2009 - 558 pages

"IV In the course of developing their medical norms of health, the Hellenistic philosophers APPEAL TO 'NATURE' and the ... Now very often the APPEAL TO 'NATURE' or 'human nature' in moral philosophy has been bound up with some version of the ..."

• Ethical Issues In Biotechnolog, Richard Sherlock, John D. Morrey - yr 2002 - 643 pages

"In the long history of considering questions of ethics two different and sometimes overlapping answers have been given to this question. The first and perhaps the oldest answer is the APPEAL TO NATURE in general or human nature in particular."

• The Bible's APPEAL TO NATURE Regarding The Second Advent Of,Ernest W. Greenwood yr 19?? - 48 pages

• Emotions, Imagination, And Moral Reasoning, Robyn Langdon, Catriona Mackenzie - yr 2012 - 380 pages

"Attitudes to pharmacological interventions will independently correlate with both APPEAL TO NATURE and ... Participants undergoing cognitive load will be less permissive of pharmacological interventions, APPEAL TO NATURE to a greater extent, and ..."

• Primitivism And Related Ideas In The Middle Ages, George Boas - yr 1997 - 240 pages

"It must therefore be proved either that the Law of Nature was the Law of God or that the APPEAL TO NATURE was illegitimate. In Saint Paul there had been a pronounced dualism between the flesh and the spirit and when the flesh was identified ..."

• Homosexuality, Science, And The Plain Sense Of Scripture ,David L. Balch - yr 2000 - 318 pages

"When an APPEAL TO NATURE involves moral judgments (as in 1 Cor. ... But he had apparently read enough in Hellenistic Jewish materials to recognize that the APPEAL TO NATURE could at times serve to illuminate what he took to be the will of God."

• Formac Pocket Guide TO Canada's Atlantic Seashore, Jeffrey C. Domm - yr 2004 - 96 pages

"This full-colour book is the perfect companion for anyone who enjoys the Atlantic seashore.

• Jan Zoet, Amsterdammer 1609-1674: Leven En Werk Van Een Kleurrijk, Rudolf Cordes, Frans-Willem Korsten - yr 2009 - 232 pages

"Westerman's reasoning is that the appeal to natural law is simply a veil for either an ultimately transcendent basis or a positivistic one. In this she is right. That is to say, as long as theorists continue to APPEAL TO 'NATURE' as a source or basis of a ..."

• Irreconcilable Differences?: Intellectual Stalemate In The Gay, Thomas C. Caramagno - yr 2002 - 237 pages

"William Schoedel says no: . . . when writers of the period APPEAL TO NATURE as a guide, they are referring (a) to the biologically and/or culturally determined character of individuals or groups ... or (b) to what ought to be in the light of the universal ..."

• Systematic Aesthetics, Richard Dien Winfield - yr 1995 - 241 pages

"reinterpret the APPEAL TO NATURE so as to exclude the iimtation of particular things. Instead, one might venture some abstract idea of natural form as that which artificial beauty resembles. In that case, however, the APPEAL TO NATURE yields a wholly ..."

• The Disorder Of Women: Democracy, Feminism, And Political Theory, Carole Pateman - yr 1989 - 228 pages

"Patriarchalism rests on the APPEAL TO NATURE and the claim that women's natural function of child-bearing prescribes their ... J. S. Mill wrote in the nineteenth century that the depth of the feelings surrounding the APPEAL TO NATURE was 'the most ..."

• Autonomy And Human Rights In Health Care: An International Perspective, David N. Weisstub, Guillermo Di徨z Pintos - yr 2008 - 401 pages

"Yet, even the APPEAL TO NATURE as source or criterion of morality, at least as suggested in Thomas Aquinas' work, would not regard nature as such, as the only source or criterion of morality. In general, Aquinas refers to the correct moral ..."

• At The Roots Of Christian Bioethics: Critical Essays On The ... ,Ana Smith Iltis, Mark J. Cherry - yr 2009 - 339 pages

"The second difficulty with APPEAL TO NATURE is that even if one thought that one could find moral significance in human nature, this would be possible only if one already possessed a canonical understanding of nature. Even if one accepts the ..."

...... This list continues with hundreds of directly relevant occurrences in books and titles: Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unworthy discussions fail where axioms are missing

The most important axiom that should be defined first: What is "nature"? And what is "nature" all about? And even more: Do we know the real nature of the Universe? Or are we just living in a terrestrial zoo while not knowing what's really happening in the Universe and not understanding its true nature? But then, if the real nature isn't like we would ever dream of, what do we gain from such discussions, rather than just loosing worthless words and precious time? 178.197.233.39 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

mention this plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca and this case

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/colombia/10789829/Gap-year-teen-dies-after-Amazonian-drug-ritual.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenhabit (talk • contribs) 11:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Latin name removed

I looked into the latin name. It seems to be a recent invention. Google's ngram can't find any mention of it in English books from the 1500s to now.

There are some older (1700s) mentions of "appeal to nature" but they seem to be cases of other meanings.

JS Mill wrote about the fallacy in 1874 (in On Nature). That's the earliest discussion of it I can find. --Deleet (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bias in implied verdict

I read a bias in the implied conclusions of this page, in these two passages:

The "Forms" section closes with this:

Julian Baggini explains that "[E]ven if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse)."

The "Examples" section closes with this:

However, it has been suggested that whether or not a product is "natural" is irrelevant, in itself, in determining its safety or effectiveness.

Note that the closing sentence of a section can be quite important in implying a conclusion or verdict of the article's point of view, which implies the Wikivoice version of reality. We must be careful with this.

Note that it has also been suggested that whether or not a product is "natural" is relevant, as well, by such people as Marion Nestle, Ph.D, M.P.H., is the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. There is a version of what many are now calling "chemophobia" as a pejorative that actually has a logical value, and that is that -- all other things being equal -- it's safer to not eat things that you don't know about and which don't have a long track record in human diet. That's not illogical and it's not fallacious. It's sensible and there is scientific basis for that. In this sense, appeal to nature has some basis in logic and in science. The human organism is indeed a biochemical machine as noted in this article poetically, and we do not understand fully every aspect of this biochemical machine enough to know when a new compound might have unexpected (and usually negative) effects upon this complex and delicate biochemical machine.

There are other reasons why an appeal to nature is not always a fallacy, as well. For instance, the way that natural forms and scents and sounds cause peace of mind in people more than most artificial forms, scents, and sounds. This is deeply built into the human organism and is supportable by evidence, as well.

So i highlight what i see as fallacies in this article itself, in how it implies that appeal to nature is a fallacy. SageRad (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not nature. The foods we've modified to eat aren't what nature gave us. We've learned to treat foods to eat them, and we've learned to avoid potential foods that we cannot eat. Nothing natural about that either. --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly a slippery term but still i think you're missing my main point. Wheat flour alone is more "natural" than wheat flour with an added chemical that's been used for less than 10 years, for instance. It's not necessarily unreasonable to say "I'd rather have the bread made from wheat flour alone, thanks, and hold the azodicarbonamide." It's not necessarily a fallacy to say that, all other things being equal. SageRad (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see how this relates to improving this article. No one should be demonstrating the fallacy as rationale for complaining about it. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It related to improving the article in a very obvious way, as i have stated clearly: the article has an implication that the appeal to nature is never justifiable and is therefore a fallacy always. However, this is demonstrably not true, and so the article has a bias implied by arrangement and content of the text. Therefore, my critique relates to improving the article by making it less biased. SageRad (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring that your example doesn't demonstrate what you think it does, it's your original research. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Might you deign to explain why? Or are you just going to state that you're ignoring it? SageRad (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Need good sources to describe it better, when it's valid or not

This was added to the lede, but it was unsourced and seems like WP:OR to me:

It is usually an invalid argument, because the implicit (unstated) primary premise "What is natural is good" typically is irrelevant, having no cogent meaning in practice, or is an opinion instead of a fact. In some philosophical frameworks where natural and good are clearly defined in a specific context, the appeal to nature might be valid and cogent.

I'm sorry to blank a decent contribution but we must use sources and i'm sure we can find sources to use for this. An example of a use of an appeal to nature that is valid is Forest bathing -- the appeal to a natural setting that the human seems naturally to like because it's fitting to our deep nature, and therefore is calming to us. Another example might be that a new chemical is introduced into food products, which may have been tested in some ways and thought to be safe, and yet there may still be risk in eating that chemical and therefore the more "natural" food prior to that chemical may still be a safer bet, because we humans sometimes learn of risks later in chemicals we use now. Anyway, sources needed. SageRad (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we can find suitable sources, given that you came to this article because of this very issue in other articles, where it is indeed sourced. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)l

Well, there are two things. There is the naturalistic fallacy which is definitely a fallacy by definition, and there is appeal to nature which is a trope of logic, which may or may not be a fallacy depending on how it's used. SageRad (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify for others, i believe you are referring to Paleolithic diet which is a very good example of a case where an appeal to nature has some validity. Of course, i realize that you personally disagree with that, but i know there are good sources in the scientific literature that support my claim. There is validity described in some good detail with a metaphor by David L. Katz at this paper in Annual Review of Public Health in which the authors write:

The particular focus in Paleolithic diets is on emulating the dietary pattern of our Stone Age ancestors with an emphasis on avoiding processed foods, and the intake of vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds, eggs, and lean meats. In principle at least, dairy and grains are excluded entirely. Arguments for a Paleolithic diet derived initially, not from modern science, but from the universal relevance of adaptation. We may note, without debate or conflict, that the native diet of any species other than our own is clearly relevant to food selection. Zoological parks do not feed wild animals in captivity based on randomized trials; they feed them based substantially on the diets of their counterparts in the wild. That Homo sapiens should be the one species for which native diet is irrelevant defies reason, and there is thus good reason to examine at least the basis for Paleolithic eating. There is a fairly strong case for the principle of a Paleolithic-style diet in the anthropology literature. The biomedical literature has limited evidence for this diet compared with the evidence for other dietary patterns reviewed here, but it is generally supportive.

This is not to say that "natural" diets are the only diets that will be healthy for animals including humans, but it is to say that all other things being equal, a natural diet is a better fallback or default for a diet than a newly coined diet. SageRad (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that even while it's being discussed here, Ronz has un-reverted the unsourced lede OR here. While WP:BRD is not policy, it is a good norm. I'm okay with this, as long as we continue to discuss, and the content is acceptable to a degree, because it does say "usually" so it's at least not a blanket statement. Still, i'd like to take this to sources. I have issue with "usually" being in the content, and unsourced. I would rather it say "sometimes it's valid and sometimes it's fallacious" unless we actually have a source that comments with some reliability on the prevalence of the use of appeal to nature in valid and fallacious ways. Otherwise it's totally WP:OR. I think i will change that one word for the time being as we discuss this, in lieu of full WP:BRD norms. SageRad (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

" appeal to nature which is a trope of logic, which may or may not be a fallacy depending on how it's used." Says who? --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appeal to nature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061026202027/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_How_to_Know_What_Is_Safe_Choosing_and_Using_Dietary_Supplements.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_How_to_Know_What_Is_Safe_Choosing_and_Using_Dietary_Supplements.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Fake Forms (Cogent appeals to nature)

I have added a new section about what might be cogent appeals to nature. This section is related to natural law theories of ethics, which have a long history: https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Law-Reader-Jacqueline-Laing/dp/1444333089/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489347235&sr=1-3&keywords=natural+law — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcrusade (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If the problem people are having with it is that it appeals to a blog, then I can cite Feser's book. There is no need to wholesale erase this section. I am fine with adjusting it, but I don't see what the problem is with adding it to the article.

Please add comments! Now open for discussion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcrusade (talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

On what planet are websites like genius.com or self-published material or blogs suitable as sources? Your bad changes have been undone by two editors now but you have continued to mash the revert key, despite being warned about edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If you noticed my link on genius.com it was about an example that commits the informal fallacy in question (appeal to nature). What was so bad about the example? It perfectly illustrates the fallacy under discussion in the article. I have also cited numerous sources, but they continue to be deleted. I would hate to believe certain wikipedia users are guilty of unnecessary censorship. Isn't the point of wikipedia the exchange of ideas or to have informative and true pages? Newcrusade (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Further, if you notice on another wikipedia page the very example I have given is mentioned there; if it is okay to mention homosexuality there, why can't it be referenced here? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy#Appeal_to_nature Advocates of homosexuality appeal to nature to claim it is good. They claim people are born that way and so it is natural. Thus, it is good. Newcrusade (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Always Fallacious?

Is an appeal to nature always fallacious? Timelezz (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No. It's often right on target. There are reasons why things that are categorized as "natural" are often truly preferable. Sometimes it has to do with a match between the conditions to which an organism has adapted. Sometimes it has to do with the risk of the new compared to the safety of the proven "old" (often equivalent to the "natural"). SageRad (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a fallacy, so the answer is yes. See Texas sharpshooter fallacy and Confirmation bias. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy and the answer is no. Appeal to nature is a mode of thinking. It is sometimes valid. SageRad (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal opinions backed by no reliable sources to make a point about a dispute in another article is inappropriate on this article's talk page.

I'll go ahead and add confirmation bias to the article. I'm not sure Texas sharpshooter fallacy adds enough to warrent. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The concept is fairly simple—though the logic is typically lost on those who assume it's a total fallacy. The idea is based on the well known fact that the basic metabolisms are "strikingly similar" across all living species (including plants, animals, eukaryotes, mollusks and so on). This isn't controversial, and is even stated right at the top of the Metabolism wiki page:

"A striking feature of metabolism is the similarity of the basic metabolic pathways and components between even vastly different species."

— Wikipedia: Metabolism

Thus, if a natural "whole food" (a whole carcass, insect, seed, egg, etc) is able to balance its own oxidative stress—within the context of "basic metabolic pathways and components"—then consuming that same whole food in its entirety will provide the basic components necessary to balance the oxidative stress of the consumer (given that we know all metabolisms are strikingly similar).

It should be noted that eating a refined portion of that whole food (a cut of steak, or a refined carbohydrate) would, by definition, be an unnatural process that removes the basic components (minerals, micronutrients, etc) necessary to balance the original living species's oxidative stress—and therefore refining also removes the basic components necessary to balance the oxidative stress of the consumer.

Now obviously there could be exceptions (i.e. eating a natural poison would not be healthy), but I don't believe anyone claims natural poisons to be healthy (if they did, that would be fallacious). So, it would at least be useful to explain that the appeal to nature is based on relatively simple logic. It may indeed perhaps be right most of the time, but certainly not right all of the time. JamesPem (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Simple English page

I'm thinking it will be beneficial to add a Simple English page, so that more people can understand this idea or use the page to explain it to others. Does anyone else think this is helpful? Sanidine (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appeal to nature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527020558/http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_99_82.html to http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_99_82.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)