Lisnabreeny (talk | contribs) |
Machine Elf 1735 (talk | contribs) WP:REFACTORed revision 413371297 by Lisnabreeny (talk) strikeouts for deletions/signatures/timeline/ Also, rv changes to § names. |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
<blockquote>"Nonetheless, one may still feel that there is something right about some appeals to nature. For instance, a diet rich in natural foods-such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains-is probably better than one based on more artificial foods-such as candy, pastries, and sausages. Also, it seems likely that a natural lifestyle-that is, one based on a natural diet and exercise-is in general a healthier one than a sedentary life spent watching television and eating doughnuts. |
<blockquote>"Nonetheless, one may still feel that there is something right about some appeals to nature. For instance, a diet rich in natural foods-such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains-is probably better than one based on more artificial foods-such as candy, pastries, and sausages. Also, it seems likely that a natural lifestyle-that is, one based on a natural diet and exercise-is in general a healthier one than a sedentary life spent watching television and eating doughnuts. |
||
These forms of argument could be treated as rules of thumb which admit some exceptions, but are still reliable enough to be useful."</blockquote> |
<s>These forms of argument could be treated as rules of thumb which admit some exceptions, but are still reliable enough to be useful.</s><!-- strikout per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 -->"</blockquote> |
||
<s>''' Ideological Battle''' |
|||
⚫ | This quote exemplifies the very casual language and non-philosophical reasoning which this whole article is based on. I nominate for it to be deleted and redirected or replaced with the adequately checked section in: [[naturalistic fallacy#Appeal_to_nature|naturalistic fallacy]]. [[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
This quote exemplifies the very casual language and non-philosophical reasoning which this whole article is based on. I nominate for it to be deleted and redirected or replaced with the adequately checked section in: [[naturalistic fallacy#Appeal_to_nature|naturalistic fallacy]].</s><!-- strikout per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> [[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Ideological Battle == |
== Ideological Battle == |
||
This article is clearly distorted to use in ideological battles with 'green' types. The notion that philosophers have concluded that any preference for nature in any context is fallacious, is absurd. The page is in need of attention from a mature, experienced philosophy editor. |
This article is clearly distorted to use in ideological battles with 'green' types. The notion that philosophers have concluded that any preference for nature in any context is fallacious, is absurd. The page is in need of attention from a mature, experienced philosophy editor. |
||
[[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
[[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I pov tagged the article and put this up to discuss/attract attention not knowing better process. On 29th Jan I put up the del subst tag. [[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> |
|||
: If you can provide reliable sources which dispute its status as fallacious then you're welcome to include them. However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather the claim, or more commonly the implication, that ''purely'' because something is "natural" it is good or benign and because something is "unnatural" it must be bad or harmful; its use is common among snake oil pedlers who imply that the naturalness of their products is proof enough of their efficacy and safety rather than any empirical evidence. Regardless, the claim that this page is somehow just an ideological dig at environmentalists is ridiculous. |
: If you can provide reliable sources which dispute its status as fallacious then you're welcome to include them. However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather the claim, or more commonly the implication, that ''purely'' because something is "natural" it is good or benign and because something is "unnatural" it must be bad or harmful; its use is common among snake oil pedlers who imply that the naturalness of their products is proof enough of their efficacy and safety rather than any empirical evidence. Regardless, the claim that this page is somehow just an ideological dig at environmentalists is ridiculous. |
||
:By the way Wikipedia convention is for new discussions to go at the bottom of the page. (moved) [[Special:Contributions/94.194.86.160|94.194.86.160]] ([[User talk:94.194.86.160|talk]]) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
:By the way Wikipedia convention is for new discussions to go at the bottom of the page. (moved) [[Special:Contributions/94.194.86.160|94.194.86.160]] ([[User talk:94.194.86.160|talk]]) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::This is first objection after the page was put up for deletion 1 week and redirected to [[naturalistic fallacy#appeal_to_nature]] from editor who reverted it and other small edits to naturalistic fallacy.[[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> |
|||
:: "However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather.. " |
:: "However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather.. " |
||
::- That was my summary of the misunderstanding which this page is built on, not my explaination of naturalistic fallacy (clearly). |
::- That was my summary of the misunderstanding which this page is built on, not my explaination of naturalistic fallacy (clearly). |
||
<s><!-- added strikeout per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> |
|||
:: I do not need to cite reliable sources to draw attention to the problems in this page, firstly because this page cites no reliable sources, secondly, because basic experience of philosophy would inform that this typical statement is wrong: "This fallacy is exemplified, for instance, on some labels and advertisements for alternative herbal remedies." |
:: I do not need to cite reliable sources to draw attention to the problems in this page, firstly because this page cites no reliable sources, secondly, because basic experience of philosophy would inform that this typical statement is wrong: "This fallacy is exemplified, for instance, on some labels and advertisements for alternative herbal remedies." |
||
:: FYI Advertisements, are not philosophical statements. If they were then "fresh food is good for you" would be as much of an example as an appeal to nature as that one i just quoted and the many other 'greenwash' political statements which this article contains. |
:: FYI Advertisements, are not philosophical statements. If they were then "fresh food is good for you" would be as much of an example as an appeal to nature as that one i just quoted and the many other 'greenwash' political statements which this article contains. |
||
::To clarify; 'fresh' is philosophically speaking -a natural property, the naturalistic fallacy states that it is not 'freshness' which can confer goodness, yet as we can see in many contexts, freshness can very often be said to be a good thing ) The mistake you have made is confusing metaphysics with physics, and the natures of things, with natural things. |
::To clarify; 'fresh' is philosophically speaking -a natural property, the naturalistic fallacy states that it is not 'freshness' which can confer goodness, yet as we can see in many contexts, freshness can very often be said to be a good thing ) The mistake you have made is confusing metaphysics with physics, and the natures of things, with natural things. |
||
::I believe this page is ''so'' bad, that no self respecting wp:philosophy editor will attempt to defend it, even if they were politicaly inclined to. I had it up for deletion for over a week, and no one defended. It was an experienced editor, who redirected it to the properly written naturalistic fallacy article, which can be seen to explicity refute this articles position. |
::I believe this page is ''so'' bad, that no self respecting wp:philosophy editor will attempt to defend it, even if they were politicaly inclined to. I had it up for deletion for over a week, and no one defended. It was an experienced editor, who redirected it to the properly written naturalistic fallacy article, which can be seen to explicity refute this articles position. |
||
::It is odd that you are aware of wp convention, yet editing from an unregistered ip. [[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
::It is odd that you are aware of wp convention, yet editing from an unregistered ip.</s><!-- added strikeout per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> [[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> |
|||
''After Page Was Resurrected''' |
|||
<!-- collapsed for confusing the timeline and duplicating material per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> |
|||
{{cob|Duplicate material}} |
|||
Of this article's two external sources, the most qualified (yet still unreviewed) writes:[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html] |
|||
<blockquote>"Nonetheless, one may still feel that there is something right about some appeals to nature. For instance, a diet rich in natural foods-such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains-is probably better than one based on more artificial foods-such as candy, pastries, and sausages. Also, it seems likely that a natural lifestyle-that is, one based on a natural diet and exercise-is in general a healthier one than a sedentary life spent watching television and eating doughnuts. |
|||
These forms of argument could be treated as rules of thumb which admit some exceptions, but are still reliable enough to be useful."</blockquote> |
|||
⚫ | This quote exemplifies the very casual language and non-philosophical reasoning which this whole article is based on. I nominate for it to be deleted and redirected or replaced with the adequately checked section in: [[naturalistic fallacy#Appeal_to_nature|naturalistic fallacy]]. [[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
<!-- collapsed for confusing the timeline and duplicating material per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> |
|||
{{cot}} |
|||
<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> |
|||
'''Full Deletion Discussion/ Expert Review''' |
|||
{{small|[[WP:REFACTOR]]: The above unsigned text was added by [[User:Lisnabreeny|Lisnabreeny]] ([[User talk:Lisnabreeny|talk]]) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)}}<!-- added per WP:REFACTOR for Lisnabreeny rev 413371297 --> |
|||
== Deletion / Expert Review == |
== Deletion / Expert Review == |
Revision as of 11:39, 12 February 2011
Philosophy: Logic / Ethics Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removed paragraph
I removed this section, because I can't really see how this fits into an article on logic, but only serves to spread a controversy to this page. Hoever, maybe someone could rework it so that it fits here.
Some{{Who|date=March 2009}} have argued that biological findings regarding evolution and [[human nature]] have helped propel the [[political right]] into power. Biologist [[John Maynard Smith]] replied to such criticism with the question "What should we have done, fiddled the equations?"<!-- This is discussed in Dawkins (2006) as well, though I'm unable to find the letter in New Scientist to which he refers --> In reality, writers in this field often consider the selfish behavior seen in nature important in understanding why we act the way we do, and as a warning of how we should ''not'' behave. One of the main themes [[Richard Dawkins]] pursues in ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' is that "we should not derive our values from Darwinism, unless it is with a negative sign". He points out that a society that uses nature as a moral compass would be "a very nasty society in which to live". He makes the point, however, that there are [[Moral development|many people who simply cannot discriminate]] between a statement of [[Is-ought problem|what is and what ought to be]].<ref>Dawkins, R. 2006. ''The Selfish Gene'', 30th Anniversary edition. pp. xiv, 3.</ref>,
Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Not a fallacy
The propsition "If natural, then good" is not a fallacy if it is preceded by an axiom of "What we define as natural is inherently good", which taken in isolation is a very possible position in philosophy. It is therefore only a fallacy if "natural = good" is taken for granted when not agreed upon beforehand. I recommend a strong rewording of this article to account for that position. --Nerd42 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're going to have to explain that for those of us who've not done philosophy. As a physicist what you've just said is X = Y therefore X = Y since the statement 'what we define as natural is inherently good' is clearly a long winded way of claiming 'natural = good'. Must a fallacy always objectively be one? Surely any fallacy can be negated if you first establish ground rules that negate it?193.195.181.230 (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Saying that something is fallacious does not mean that the argument "P, therefore P" fails. Fallacy can refer to an appeal to emotion, which this most certainly is.Xodarap00 (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The natural order is a fallacy ? I guess existence itself is a "fallacy" then
I do not see how referring to the natural "order" of the world can be a logical fallacy. The creation and existence of the universe is not in the control of artificial means (i.e. those of a sentient being like a human). The existence of life on Earth is determined by whatever it is that is responsible for the universe itself so if someone disagrees with an action or opinion which is an artificial manipulation of this existence (i.e. by humans), then it is indeed quite logical.
For example, if one argues we should not have a nuclear war because it is a non-natural act that will wipe out all (or nearly all) life on the planet, its a valid argument. This is based on empirical observation that only one species on our planet, humans, are capable of performing such an act and therefore it is not in accordance with that of nature. The only other possibility for mass extinction events to occur is by an event determined by whatever "force" holds the universe together/is responsible for "time" or the sequence of events which occur (e.g. a Volcanic eruption or the impact of an asteroid). It is therefore logical, based on empirical reasoning, not to perform an act which is contrary to the existence of life itself and not replicated by any other known species (i.e. non-natural).
Another example of the validity of the natural argument is the practice of a voluntary suicide. This is another human behaviour not replicated by any other species. Perhaps the term artificial is the main issue since artificial is essentially anything created or done by humans. The term artificial itself precludes the idea that humans posess various qualities or traits distinct from anything else in the natural world (e.g. our level of intelligence, language, etc.). Since no other species on this planet commits acts which can result in the destruction of all life itself, it is recognized that humans are distinct in this manner. With this in mind, such an act is an example of our potential to do things which break any connection we have to the natural world and are non-natural.
72.39.250.213 (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe you're misunderstanding the point of the articles. Appeal to Nature does not say that "natural is not good", it says "the statement 'natural is good' is not necessarily true." That which is natural certainly can be good, that's not in question, but just because it is natural does not make it good.
Addressing your argument regarding nuclear war, surely almost everyone with agree with you that nuclear war is bad. However, nuclear war is not bad because it's "unnatural" (a hopelessly vague word), nuclear war is bad because it would cause enormous destruction, possibly ending macroscopic life for millions of years. Mass extinctions can be naturally occurring for many reasons, but they're still "bad," unless perhaps you're a member of one of the species that thrives afterward!
99.20.91.212 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Using fallacy to argue fallacy
Regarding the following quote:
"Lastly, the argument can quickly be invalidated by a counter-argument that demonstrates something that is natural that has undesirable properties (for example aging, illness, and death are natural), or something that is unnatural that has desirable properties (for example, many modern medicines are not found in nature, yet have saved countless lives)."
As a counter-counter-argument to this statement, valid philosophies include the acceptance of aging, illness, and death as normal parts of the human existence, along with the rejection of modern medicines due to their role in over-population, for example.
In other words, the quoted argument performs a fallacy in itself by assuming that aging, illness, and death are undesirable, and that saving countless lives (although trickier to dispute) is desirable.
Tenstairs (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I reworded this to say "can be seen as desirable" rather than saying "is desirable." Xodarap00 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Naturalism faces a problem of Induction
There is an epistemological question a naturalist has to answer: "How do you know the naturalistic criteria to which objects must strive towards?" I think that as human beings, we look at the world around us and abstract out generalizations from the various things we sense. Right now, I’m looking outside my window at a Red Cedar. It shares many traits with other objects outside my window, most of which are plants. Because the Cedar shares a lot of exact similarities with other plants, it is a member of the plant family. Comparing the Cedar tree to grass and bushes shows that there are a lot of strong distinctions between the various types of plant, so we create sub-classes to represent these property-based distinctions (grasses, shrubs, trees, etc). There are lots of trees outside. In order to identify a particular tree as a Cedar and another as a Douglas Fir, we’d need to note the distinctions between Cedars and Douglas Firs (Bark texture, leaves, shape, branch structure, etc). The particular cedar I’m looking at appears to be a good example of a cedar tree. The way I form that judgment is by comparing this particular cedar tree to my mental prototype of a cedar tree, which is formed by my various life experiences with cedar trees. Now, here’s the problem: Imagine that you’re hiking out in the woods, and for the first time you encounter a new, exceptionally rare, scraggly looking tree. Nobody has ever seen it before so it’s a new species. Since there isn’t a mental prototype to compare this new tree against, it’s impossible to say anything normative about this particular tree within its class – only a comparison to other trees is reasonable. Is the scraggly appearance natural to this new type of tree, or is this particular tree unhealthy? Because there are no established normative criteria for this new tree, the naturalist can’t say whether or not the tree is flourishing. Let’s suppose that as you continue in your walk, you encounter several more of these rare trees. They all appear to be scraggly, so you make a normative generalization about the scraggliness of the trees. Unfortunately, this region of the forest has been infested by a particular type of tree fungus which causes the newly discovered tree species to be scraggly and unhealthy. The trees are certainly not flourishing, but now that the naturalist has been able to make a normative generalization about the typical nature of these trees, they would have to evaluate the level of flourishing based on how these trees exemplify their scraggly nature. Because of this problem with induction, I hesitate to associate naturalistic excellence with flourishing. --Eric Nevala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.40.177 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Changes 8/3
- this is listed in appeals to emotion in the philosophy template, so putting it there in the lede
- split it up a bit, more because it was too long than because of any semantic breaks
- Tried to clean it up a little, but I'm not very good with the words :)
Xodarap00 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC).
Disputed/POV
Could anyone give some info as to why this is pov/disputed? It looks like it was tagged there by an anon user. If no one has objections in the next few days I think I'll just remove the tags. Xodarap00 (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposed Deletion
Of this article's two external sources, the most qualified (yet still unreviewed) writes:[1]
"Nonetheless, one may still feel that there is something right about some appeals to nature. For instance, a diet rich in natural foods-such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains-is probably better than one based on more artificial foods-such as candy, pastries, and sausages. Also, it seems likely that a natural lifestyle-that is, one based on a natural diet and exercise-is in general a healthier one than a sedentary life spent watching television and eating doughnuts.
These forms of argument could be treated as rules of thumb which admit some exceptions, but are still reliable enough to be useful."
Ideological Battle
This quote exemplifies the very casual language and non-philosophical reasoning which this whole article is based on. I nominate for it to be deleted and redirected or replaced with the adequately checked section in: naturalistic fallacy. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Ideological Battle
This article is clearly distorted to use in ideological battles with 'green' types. The notion that philosophers have concluded that any preference for nature in any context is fallacious, is absurd. The page is in need of attention from a mature, experienced philosophy editor. Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I pov tagged the article and put this up to discuss/attract attention not knowing better process. On 29th Jan I put up the del subst tag. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you can provide reliable sources which dispute its status as fallacious then you're welcome to include them. However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather the claim, or more commonly the implication, that purely because something is "natural" it is good or benign and because something is "unnatural" it must be bad or harmful; its use is common among snake oil pedlers who imply that the naturalness of their products is proof enough of their efficacy and safety rather than any empirical evidence. Regardless, the claim that this page is somehow just an ideological dig at environmentalists is ridiculous.
- By the way Wikipedia convention is for new discussions to go at the bottom of the page. (moved) 94.194.86.160 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is first objection after the page was put up for deletion 1 week and redirected to naturalistic fallacy#appeal_to_nature from editor who reverted it and other small edits to naturalistic fallacy.Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- "However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather.. "
- - That was my summary of the misunderstanding which this page is built on, not my explaination of naturalistic fallacy (clearly).
- I do not need to cite reliable sources to draw attention to the problems in this page, firstly because this page cites no reliable sources, secondly, because basic experience of philosophy would inform that this typical statement is wrong: "This fallacy is exemplified, for instance, on some labels and advertisements for alternative herbal remedies."
- FYI Advertisements, are not philosophical statements. If they were then "fresh food is good for you" would be as much of an example as an appeal to nature as that one i just quoted and the many other 'greenwash' political statements which this article contains.
- To clarify; 'fresh' is philosophically speaking -a natural property, the naturalistic fallacy states that it is not 'freshness' which can confer goodness, yet as we can see in many contexts, freshness can very often be said to be a good thing ) The mistake you have made is confusing metaphysics with physics, and the natures of things, with natural things.
- I believe this page is so bad, that no self respecting wp:philosophy editor will attempt to defend it, even if they were politicaly inclined to. I had it up for deletion for over a week, and no one defended. It was an experienced editor, who redirected it to the properly written naturalistic fallacy article, which can be seen to explicity refute this articles position.
It is odd that you are aware of wp convention, yet editing from an unregistered ip.Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
After Page Was Resurrected'
|}
Of this article's two external sources, the most qualified (yet still unreviewed) writes:[2]
"Nonetheless, one may still feel that there is something right about some appeals to nature. For instance, a diet rich in natural foods-such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains-is probably better than one based on more artificial foods-such as candy, pastries, and sausages. Also, it seems likely that a natural lifestyle-that is, one based on a natural diet and exercise-is in general a healthier one than a sedentary life spent watching television and eating doughnuts. These forms of argument could be treated as rules of thumb which admit some exceptions, but are still reliable enough to be useful."
This quote exemplifies the very casual language and non-philosophical reasoning which this whole article is based on. I nominate for it to be deleted and redirected or replaced with the adequately checked section in: naturalistic fallacy. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Full Deletion Discussion/ Expert Review WP:REFACTOR: The above unsigned text was added by Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Deletion / Expert ReviewI believe the subject of this page is commonly misunderstood, and the page itself carrys the misunderstanding under the credentials of wp:philosophy. The page is only sourced to 2 private blogs, and a non-philosophical article from cancer.org. It contains mostly erroneous and politicised statements and links. I put it up for deletion, and it was redirected by another experienced editor to a properly written section for 'appeal to nature' in naturalistic fallacy Due to the complexety of philosophical work, and misapplication of this concept here and in other non-philosophical discussions. I do not believe as an amature, i could resolve the conflict with the editor attempting to restore this page now. But i have read well on this in the course of my edits, and can provide stubstantial links to refute the page here, if required. (Although i did expect the problems to be obvious) Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
A search for the term returns many informal/private definitions but formal/academic defintions are impossible to come by. Considering the potential ramifications of the argument being true, that all appeals to nature are fallacious, we need at least one formal philosophical substantiation of that. I have found that the term is mostly used neutraly, like this example in the intro to: "What is Nature: Culture, Politics and the non-Human" by Kate Soper[[3]] Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
NeutralityThis article is presuming, instead of explaining, what an "appeal" is (i.e. that it is always to the Truth) and what "nature" is supposed to be (that it is always Good). This is so reductive as to make the rest of the discussion incoherent. The article needs to be wiped clear, and replaced with something more helpful that says what place "appeals" have in "arguments". So:
You don't need anything more, the rest should be moved to an article on fallacies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkinxyz (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible appeals to nature in popular conciousnessPopular examples in the page could be discussed here. There will be to and fro and consensus may be impossible. I for one am willing to look for examples of truely fallacious appeals to nature to include in the article. I will put cases here and request comment on them. Hopefuly we can find fallacious and meritous examples which we can agree on:
Proposed fallacious appeals
The article includes many possible examples of fallacious appeals. I have listed them out here to discuss each over time. unsigned content by Lisnabreeny
Post Review DiscussionThe speedy keep feels a bit... speedy, as my own position was one of knock it down and rebuild, due to the critical problem which prompted the delete request. I posted above a list of the cases made in the old article, for the purpose of isolating which ones editors want to bring over and scrutinising them, and the purpose of balancing POV with what i believe are valid appeals, which not doubt will need scrutinising too. I am still asorbing the clinical clarity of the new intro written by Walkinxyz, and am interested to read further. Lisnabreeny (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |