5 ms·

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the term "natural fallacy". I don't think it's the "naturalistic fallacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the term "natural fallacy". I don't think it's the "naturalistic fallacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy - it sounds more like simple nostalgia. Just because people like some things about the past doesn't mean they want to literally return to the past.

chc 9y ago
It basically is the naturalistic fallacy. It's taking nature as the way things ought to be and human developments as dangerous aberrations. There is an element of nostalgia to it as well, but the nostalgia is for a time when we were "closer to nature."
- racer-v 9y ago
  I notice a lot more of what I'd call the "fallacy of progress" - the idea that because humans did more of something in the past, it must be outmoded and not worth doing. Exercise and fresh air are still good for you, even though cavemen had much easier access to them than modern urbanites.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Who have you meet that denies the value of exercise? Seems to be one of the few almost universal values in Western society, from the joggers to the football fans (of both kinds of football), and also public policy. Even us lazy slobs will (more or less begrudgingly) admit its importance.
    - racer-v 9y ago
      That's why I use exercise as a counter-example to the GP for mocking people who "wish to live in the past" and "live the way many of our ancestors did." Compared with today, the lifestyles of our ancestors had both advantages and disadvantages; one advantage was that adequate exercise came pretty much automatically.
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        Nobody is talking here about exercise. There is some misconception that “old ways” were healthier and they weren’t. Burning wood is bad bad for you not having access to clean water is bad for you etc. The fact that it’s natural means nothing nature is a cunt.
        racer-v 9y ago
        Some "old ways" are healthier and some are less healthy. They have to be evaluated individually. Saying across the board, as you are, that pre-industrial lifestyles were universally less healthy in every way, is just as false as saying the opposite.
        dogma1138 9y ago
        Name one old way habit that is healthier than it’s modern equivalent?
        racer-v 9y ago
        - walking instead of driving - eating fresh foods instead of processed starches - no factories and industrial agriculture producing greenhouse gasses - social organization based on communal resources and personal autonomy (hunter-gatherers) instead of authoritarianism and hierarchy (settled agricultural governments)
        dogma1138 9y ago
        Nice false equivalence. You can walk today, and it’s likely much safer. You can eat fresh food and the food today is overall much safer even the processed food. People in the past didn’t had fresh food this didn’t last long they ate processed food which would be preserved. Fresh food was an occasional luxury and even then it would be much less safe than it is today. Greenhouse gases have no direct impact on health, smoke and pollution does and even London’s historic smog wasn’t nearly as bad as the average cave lung. Social organization... how exactly does this relates to health again? Even the worse life style today (health wise) is better than anything you could do in antiquity. An average life style is considerably healthier. And if you selectively choose to live the healthiest life style possible in any period nothing in the past beats today.
    - Lev1a 9y ago
      SOME types of execise are bad or at least not that great for you, like jogging/running as it damages your knees in the long run(heh).
joshuata 9y ago
I believe it is an appeal to nature rather than a naturalistic fallacy.
- taneq 9y ago
  I've heard it mostly called this as well.
FabHK 9y ago
Not OP, but "natural fallacy" might mean the idea that what's natural is good, and what's "chemical" is bad. It's prevalent, and wrong, I think. For me, that's quite distinct from the naturalistic fallacy, which is really related to the is-ought distinction (often attributed to Hume). The fallacy consists of going from a descriptive statement (this is how things are) to a normative statement (thus, this is how things should be). A (fallacious) example would be that strong animals devour weaker animals, thus it's good and proper also in our society that the strong exploit the weak. For me, that's an illicit move from "is" to "ought", and quite distinct from the "untreated water is natural and thus must be healthy", "vaccines are chemical and unnatural and thus must be bad" fallacy. However, from the Wikipedia page it seems that some people also use "naturalistic fallacy" in the former sense ("appeal to nature"). (Note that Sam Harris and others are arguing (convincingly, in my view) that ultimately, our "oughts" must be informed and even follow from "is", from descriptive statements, rejecting the whole strict is/ought distinction.)
- pensivemood 9y ago
  Wow such stupidity in this HN crowd! Natural means what a being has been exposed to during the course of its evolution. "Vaccines are chemical and unnatural" because we didn't have stuff like that injected into our bodies during the course of our evolution. Hence it is not "natural".. I am finding so much stupidity in this place these days! Damn!
  - sctb 9y ago
    We just asked you not to post like this, so we've banned the account.
    - pensivemood 9y ago
      But your users are so stupid, what can I do! And I did explain myself a bit here, which was one of your issues earlier...
natecavanaugh 9y ago
Sorry, I did indeed mean naturalistic fallacy. It's probably a mix of nostalgia that's girded with this entire fallacy that things from the Earth are somehow all just here to help us live the eternal life we were designed to have, if that evil man-made brain of ours didn't try to confuse us with it's destructive powers of fighting cancer and lupus and starvation. For me, it tends to germinate with that one fallacy.

chc 9y ago

It basically is the naturalistic fallacy. It's taking nature as the way things ought to be and human developments as dangerous aberrations. There is an element of nostalgia to it as well, but the nostalgia is for a time when we were "closer to nature."

racer-v 9y ago
I notice a lot more of what I'd call the "fallacy of progress" - the idea that because humans did more of something in the past, it must be outmoded and not worth doing. Exercise and fresh air are still good for you, even though cavemen had much easier access to them than modern urbanites.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Who have you meet that denies the value of exercise? Seems to be one of the few almost universal values in Western society, from the joggers to the football fans (of both kinds of football), and also public policy. Even us lazy slobs will (more or less begrudgingly) admit its importance.
  - racer-v 9y ago
    That's why I use exercise as a counter-example to the GP for mocking people who "wish to live in the past" and "live the way many of our ancestors did." Compared with today, the lifestyles of our ancestors had both advantages and disadvantages; one advantage was that adequate exercise came pretty much automatically.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Nobody is talking here about exercise. There is some misconception that “old ways” were healthier and they weren’t. Burning wood is bad bad for you not having access to clean water is bad for you etc. The fact that it’s natural means nothing nature is a cunt.
      - racer-v 9y ago
        Some "old ways" are healthier and some are less healthy. They have to be evaluated individually. Saying across the board, as you are, that pre-industrial lifestyles were universally less healthy in every way, is just as false as saying the opposite.
        dogma1138 9y ago
        Name one old way habit that is healthier than it’s modern equivalent?
        racer-v 9y ago
        - walking instead of driving - eating fresh foods instead of processed starches - no factories and industrial agriculture producing greenhouse gasses - social organization based on communal resources and personal autonomy (hunter-gatherers) instead of authoritarianism and hierarchy (settled agricultural governments)
        dogma1138 9y ago
        Nice false equivalence. You can walk today, and it’s likely much safer. You can eat fresh food and the food today is overall much safer even the processed food. People in the past didn’t had fresh food this didn’t last long they ate processed food which would be preserved. Fresh food was an occasional luxury and even then it would be much less safe than it is today. Greenhouse gases have no direct impact on health, smoke and pollution does and even London’s historic smog wasn’t nearly as bad as the average cave lung. Social organization... how exactly does this relates to health again? Even the worse life style today (health wise) is better than anything you could do in antiquity. An average life style is considerably healthier. And if you selectively choose to live the healthiest life style possible in any period nothing in the past beats today.
  - Lev1a 9y ago
    SOME types of execise are bad or at least not that great for you, like jogging/running as it damages your knees in the long run(heh).

joshuata 9y ago

I believe it is an appeal to nature rather than a naturalistic fallacy.

taneq 9y ago
I've heard it mostly called this as well.

FabHK 9y ago

Not OP, but "natural fallacy" might mean the idea that what's natural is good, and what's "chemical" is bad. It's prevalent, and wrong, I think. For me, that's quite distinct from the naturalistic fallacy, which is really related to the is-ought distinction (often attributed to Hume). The fallacy consists of going from a descriptive statement (this is how things are) to a normative statement (thus, this is how things should be). A (fallacious) example would be that strong animals devour weaker animals, thus it's good and proper also in our society that the strong exploit the weak. For me, that's an illicit move from "is" to "ought", and quite distinct from the "untreated water is natural and thus must be healthy", "vaccines are chemical and unnatural and thus must be bad" fallacy. However, from the Wikipedia page it seems that some people also use "naturalistic fallacy" in the former sense ("appeal to nature"). (Note that Sam Harris and others are arguing (convincingly, in my view) that ultimately, our "oughts" must be informed and even follow from "is", from descriptive statements, rejecting the whole strict is/ought distinction.)

pensivemood 9y ago
Wow such stupidity in this HN crowd! Natural means what a being has been exposed to during the course of its evolution. "Vaccines are chemical and unnatural" because we didn't have stuff like that injected into our bodies during the course of our evolution. Hence it is not "natural".. I am finding so much stupidity in this place these days! Damn!
- sctb 9y ago
  We just asked you not to post like this, so we've banned the account.
  - pensivemood 9y ago
    But your users are so stupid, what can I do! And I did explain myself a bit here, which was one of your issues earlier...

natecavanaugh 9y ago

Sorry, I did indeed mean naturalistic fallacy. It's probably a mix of nostalgia that's girded with this entire fallacy that things from the Earth are somehow all just here to help us live the eternal life we were designed to have, if that evil man-made brain of ours didn't try to confuse us with it's destructive powers of fighting cancer and lupus and starvation. For me, it tends to germinate with that one fallacy.