\”The Naturalistic Fallacy and Sophie’s Choice\” – What kind of \”naturalistic fallacy\” is meant?
What P. Bourges Waldegg is pointing at is not what I want to critize; but using the term \”naturalistic fallacy\”.
Originally coined by G.E. Moore, the term refers to a definition problem concerning the definition of the term \”good\”, especially if one tries to define \”good\” with naturalistic, e.g. psychological or biological terms (because of the argument of the open question: if you define \”good\”, for example, as \”pleasure\”, you still could ask \”But is pleasure \’good\’?\”; following Moore, you can\’t define \”good\” in such a way).
This has nothing to do with the assertion that \”nature is good\”. It is just, if Moore is right, a formal problem of definition.
Even if P. Bourges Waldegg means the is/ought-gap, which sometimes is also labelled \”naturalistic fallacy\”, her use of the term seems to be wrong. It might be that the assertion that \”nature is good\” is a \”conclusion\” of an unjustified breaking of the is/ought-gap, but even then the assertion \”on its own\” doesn\’t count as a \”naturalistic fallacy\”.
There is a fallacy which could be the one P. Borges Waldeggs meant. It is called \”Appeal to Nature\” or \”The Natural Law Fallacy\”; and this fallacy includes also the is/ought-gap. But this is not what is normally meant by \”naturalistic fallacy\”. –
We should be careful when we use the term \”naturalistic fallacy\”.
I think it’s perfectly clear what P. Waldegg meant by “naturalistic fallacy” even if it’s not the original sense used by Moore.
Moore used the \”open-question argument\” and \”Hume\’s Guillotine\” against the naturalistic fallacy to prove that \”good\” cannot be defined in terms of any natural quality of the world.
So, in a broad sense, isn’t it OK to use the term for the purposes P.Waldegg uses it?
Over fifty years ago Alfred North Whitehead,the British philospher, described a misconception in scientific reasoning that he referred to as the \’fallacy of misplaced concreteness\’. Stated in other terms this is the confusion of the abstract for the real. An instance of this is nicely demonstrated in Behe\’s NYT op ed of Feb 7th where he sees evidence of intelligent design because of a resemblance of certain cellular processes to machines. Scientists often use models or metaphors, in this case the workings of a machine, as a conceptual tool. But when they substitute the model or metaphor for actual empiric inquiry a fallacy results which can lead to faulty conclusions. As Dr Behe nicely demonstrates, the fallacy he has created is to see the handiwork of intelligent design when there is no empirical evidence to support the claim. This misconception may make for interesting storytelling but it is not science.
I saw this article about misrepresenting the beliefs and principles of a religious US Presidential appointee and immediately thought you may benefit.
The left\’s most recent salvo against the religious right was launched by an obscure online environmentalist journal called Grist. In October of last year, Grist published an article titled \”The Godly Must Be Crazy,\” the thesis of which was that conservative Christians are deliberately bent on despoiling the environment:
\”Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed–even hastened–as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.
We are not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. The 231 legislators (all but five of them Republicans) who received an average 80 percent approval rating or higher from the leading religious-right organizations
make up more than 40 percent of the U.S. Congress.\”
I appreciated your article and continue to marvel at the persistence of the implications that fall out of the \”nature/nurture\” debate. While I marvel (and grow weary) at the persistence of the debate in academic circles, I am horrified at the simplistic nonsense espoused by the likes of Dr. Laura. It is time, perhaps, that American schools paid serious attention to Critical Thinking classes starting at the primary school level. The dogma and misinformation is not only rampant but has serious implications for Canada. It needs to be checked, and soon.
It is frightening to sit and watch how the twisted ideas of the American Fundamentalist Right are seeping into our country with the potential to undermine our Constitution. The upcoming vote to legalize gay marriage here in Canada is a case in point. There has been far too much cross-border influence around this issue.
don\’t mean to sound hyerbolic but there is a nauseating immaturity that currently abounds in American media and politics and I can only hope that my belief in the majority of American people to change this state of affairs is not misplaced. However, the recent election results were not at all encouraging.
Thank you for a lucid and well-argued piece. You may want to review the literature put out by \”evolutionary psychology.\” I suspect you would find much fodder there.
“It is frightening to sit and watch how the twisted ideas of the American Fundamentalist Right are seeping into our country with the potential to undermine our Constitution.” … “don\’t mean to sound hyperbolic but there is a nauseating immaturity that currently abounds in American media and politics”
The natural superiority of all Canadian or British thought over all American ideas may have a wee tendency to mislead you. First, despite the obvious sophistication of all who share the hyperbolic antipathy to US Christianity, the people are pretty rational in most areas.
The Anglophone democracies have done pretty damn well for the last few hundred years in correcting their excesses and abusive histories, despite a dominant Christian paradigm. Why don’t you trust the people a bit more and watch what they do instead of spouting this nonsense?
I support critical thinking training as you suggest; but if people were as switched on to rationality as you are against your conservative straw-man, they would be burning down the offices of chiropractors, naturopaths, fairy shops, iridologists, crystal healing centres, psychotherapists and the homes of the Green Left.
Wrt the article about the \”Chief\” at Illinois, do take a look at this:
http://www.fightingwhites.org/aboutus.aspx
It\’s old but it\’s great for a laugh, and it\’s instructive.
\”The Naturalistic Fallacy and Sophie’s Choice\” – What kind of \”naturalistic fallacy\” is meant?
What P. Bourges Waldegg is pointing at is not what I want to critize; but using the term \”naturalistic fallacy\”.
Originally coined by G.E. Moore, the term refers to a definition problem concerning the definition of the term \”good\”, especially if one tries to define \”good\” with naturalistic, e.g. psychological or biological terms (because of the argument of the open question: if you define \”good\”, for example, as \”pleasure\”, you still could ask \”But is pleasure \’good\’?\”; following Moore, you can\’t define \”good\” in such a way).
This has nothing to do with the assertion that \”nature is good\”. It is just, if Moore is right, a formal problem of definition.
Even if P. Bourges Waldegg means the is/ought-gap, which sometimes is also labelled \”naturalistic fallacy\”, her use of the term seems to be wrong. It might be that the assertion that \”nature is good\” is a \”conclusion\” of an unjustified breaking of the is/ought-gap, but even then the assertion \”on its own\” doesn\’t count as a \”naturalistic fallacy\”.
There is a fallacy which could be the one P. Borges Waldeggs meant. It is called \”Appeal to Nature\” or \”The Natural Law Fallacy\”; and this fallacy includes also the is/ought-gap. But this is not what is normally meant by \”naturalistic fallacy\”. –
We should be careful when we use the term \”naturalistic fallacy\”.
I think it’s perfectly clear what P. Waldegg meant by “naturalistic fallacy” even if it’s not the original sense used by Moore.
Moore used the \”open-question argument\” and \”Hume\’s Guillotine\” against the naturalistic fallacy to prove that \”good\” cannot be defined in terms of any natural quality of the world.
So, in a broad sense, isn’t it OK to use the term for the purposes P.Waldegg uses it?
Over fifty years ago Alfred North Whitehead,the British philospher, described a misconception in scientific reasoning that he referred to as the \’fallacy of misplaced concreteness\’. Stated in other terms this is the confusion of the abstract for the real. An instance of this is nicely demonstrated in Behe\’s NYT op ed of Feb 7th where he sees evidence of intelligent design because of a resemblance of certain cellular processes to machines. Scientists often use models or metaphors, in this case the workings of a machine, as a conceptual tool. But when they substitute the model or metaphor for actual empiric inquiry a fallacy results which can lead to faulty conclusions. As Dr Behe nicely demonstrates, the fallacy he has created is to see the handiwork of intelligent design when there is no empirical evidence to support the claim. This misconception may make for interesting storytelling but it is not science.
I saw this article about misrepresenting the beliefs and principles of a religious US Presidential appointee and immediately thought you may benefit.
The left\’s most recent salvo against the religious right was launched by an obscure online environmentalist journal called Grist. In October of last year, Grist published an article titled \”The Godly Must Be Crazy,\” the thesis of which was that conservative Christians are deliberately bent on despoiling the environment:
\”Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed–even hastened–as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.
We are not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. The 231 legislators (all but five of them Republicans) who received an average 80 percent approval rating or higher from the leading religious-right organizations
make up more than 40 percent of the U.S. Congress.\”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/244qiuuc.asp?pg=1
I appreciated your article and continue to marvel at the persistence of the implications that fall out of the \”nature/nurture\” debate. While I marvel (and grow weary) at the persistence of the debate in academic circles, I am horrified at the simplistic nonsense espoused by the likes of Dr. Laura. It is time, perhaps, that American schools paid serious attention to Critical Thinking classes starting at the primary school level. The dogma and misinformation is not only rampant but has serious implications for Canada. It needs to be checked, and soon.
It is frightening to sit and watch how the twisted ideas of the American Fundamentalist Right are seeping into our country with the potential to undermine our Constitution. The upcoming vote to legalize gay marriage here in Canada is a case in point. There has been far too much cross-border influence around this issue.
don\’t mean to sound hyerbolic but there is a nauseating immaturity that currently abounds in American media and politics and I can only hope that my belief in the majority of American people to change this state of affairs is not misplaced. However, the recent election results were not at all encouraging.
Thank you for a lucid and well-argued piece. You may want to review the literature put out by \”evolutionary psychology.\” I suspect you would find much fodder there.
Gerry,
“It is frightening to sit and watch how the twisted ideas of the American Fundamentalist Right are seeping into our country with the potential to undermine our Constitution.” … “don\’t mean to sound hyperbolic but there is a nauseating immaturity that currently abounds in American media and politics”
The natural superiority of all Canadian or British thought over all American ideas may have a wee tendency to mislead you. First, despite the obvious sophistication of all who share the hyperbolic antipathy to US Christianity, the people are pretty rational in most areas.
The Anglophone democracies have done pretty damn well for the last few hundred years in correcting their excesses and abusive histories, despite a dominant Christian paradigm. Why don’t you trust the people a bit more and watch what they do instead of spouting this nonsense?
I support critical thinking training as you suggest; but if people were as switched on to rationality as you are against your conservative straw-man, they would be burning down the offices of chiropractors, naturopaths, fairy shops, iridologists, crystal healing centres, psychotherapists and the homes of the Green Left.
Cheers
Chris