Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nodrog
The naturalistic 'fallacy' is bullshit (like the intentional 'fallacy' and the phenomenological 'fallacy'). You cant just start with your own baseless ideological position and then claim that anyone who disagrees is automatically committing a logical fallacy, otherwise I could invent the Atheist fallacy (the fallacious belief that emprical evidence should have greater weighting than scripture) and the Aryan fallacy (giving credence to arguments made my people who do not come from the master race).
The naturalist fallacy relies on a supernatural view of ethics where terms like 'Good' (capital letter!) are thought to be denote some kind of spooky intrinsic 'property 'of objects/actions rather than simply being words in the English language, like the rest of our adjectives.
|
We have, luckily, sorted this out on irc, what a wonderful thing instantaneous communication is! I was referring to the "appeal to nature" more than Moore's "naturalistic fallacy". Apologies for confusion caused everybody, nod and boogster really.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dda
And the award for "Most Boring Thread Ever" goes to........
|
I worry about posts like this. Do you mean it? Why do you find it boring? Were you aware of all this already? Why did you read a thread entitled logical fallacies if you didn't want to read about basic forms of logical fallacies? I could write about how I worry that my seventeen year old couch isn't going to graduate from school because he spends so much time watching tv. Would that make for a more interesting thread?