4 ms·
Wouldn't a limited version the naturalistic fallacy be somewhat appropriate here? Until we have better science on the subject[1], it seems reasonable to me to
by harimau777 7y ago
Wouldn't a limited version the naturalistic fallacy be somewhat appropriate here?
Until we have better science on the subject[1], it seems reasonable to me to assume that our bodies have had time to evolve and adapt to naturally occurring substances in a way that they haven't to man made chemicals. Of course I'm sure this doesn't apply perfectly, but it seems like a reasonable heuristic.
[1] An additional problem is that, even when there is "science", I am often not equipped to determine if it was a sham funded by industry, whether a given chemical is just some functionally identical variant of a potentially unsafe substance, etc.
- lukifer 7y agoLate reply, but yeah, this is roughly my view. I think the Naturalistic Fallacy label should be applied to absolutism: the old/"natural" thing must be good, the new/"unnatural" thing must be bad, both of which are clearly false. But I think there's an argument for taking the history of selection pressures (or lack thereof) into account when making risk assessments. This could also be compared to Chesterton's Fence [0], or even the Lindy Effect [1]. > I am often not equipped to determine if it was a sham funded by industry Yeah, this is a problem. :( While I trust that there are good actors in most subfields of scientific inquiry, many domains (health in particular) are exorbitantly expensive to empirically research, inevitably leading to perverse incentives, or at least the absence of incentives to do thorough and holistic research. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect