Talk:Appeal to nature

Singer's Practical Ethics as an example
responding to comments on my talk page: "Hi Ronz, I'm trying to figure out why your objection to my initial edit on Appeal to nature was so significant that the paragraph added was worth deleting entirely. An example given in one of the most widely-read and widely-used applied ethics texts does not seem like something in need of additional references in support of its relevance to the article, and it just seems like bad editing practice to delete content from a reliable source unless there is an issue with the actual content (which clearly does apply to this page). By the excessive standard you're employing here, most examples in articles like this one should also be subject to deletion, which just seems unreasonable. Lastly, your second reversion included several extra objections that you hadn't mentioned in your first reversion, and I'm not clear on how any of those apply, so if you wouldn't mind clarifying how all of those policies apply in this case, I would appreciate it... Drevolt (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)"

WP:V is verification. It's not in the second edition. I realize that you referenced the third addition, but from what I saw in the second edition "Another prominent example" wouldn't be verified in either edition, so is original research to give prominence to this example.

We should be using examples from prominent sources on the topic of logic, or something similar. I don't see how choosing examples from other sources can be done in a neutral manner otherwise. As editors of Wikpedia, we should not be the ones choosing examples and saying they are noteworthy. Such selection should be left to experts, and should be from the context of informal logic, rhetoric, etc. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronz - By that standard, there should not be an example section on this page, period. None of the cited sources include logic texts, and the argument itself is not likely to ever be discussed in the work of logicians. As for the pagination, I recommend finding a copy of the third edition, as it's very plainly in the text. Singer is a very well-known philosopher, so he is a credible source for this being a flawed argument. If your problem is with the phrase "prominent example", I will avoid using that phrase, but the edit you just made to try to preserve the mention of Singer introduced significant grammatical errors and obscured the content of the source, so I'm going to change it back and then make some edits. Hope this deals with your concerns.

By the way, here is a quote from the NPOV page FAQ: "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there." --Drevolt (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By that standard, there should not be an example section on this page That's probably best until someone can find examples from expert-written sources on relevant topics.
 * Discussing details of editing burden tends to be a waste of time outside of the exceptions (BLP, NOT, ArbCom, etc).
 * Please quote from the ref here in detail, and add a verifying quote to the reference in the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * On the first point, what I'm telling you is that these are examples from expert-written sources on relevant topics. Logic is a subdiscipline of philosophy, and the cited source is written by a philosopher. We shouldn't delete all of the examples, we should try to flesh them out with cited sources, which is exactly what I've been doing.
 * As for the second point, I was specifically trying to point you to the following: "there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time". This is clearly the case here, overzealous deletion of information is not going to help anyone.
 * And to the last point, here is the direct quote from Singer: "Sometimes people draw a slightly different conclusion from the fact that animals eat each other. This suggests, they think, not that animals deserve to be eaten, but rather that there is a natural law according to which the stronger prey on the weaker, a kind of Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' in which by eating animals we are merely playing our part. This interpretation of the objection makes two basic mistakes, one of fact and the other of reasoning. This might be true of those who still hunt for food, but it has nothing to do with the mass production of domestic animals in factory farms. Suppose that we did still hunt for our food, though, and this was part of some natural evolutionary process. There would still be an error of reasoning in the assumption that because this process is natural it is right. It is, no doubt, 'natural' for women to produce an infant every year or two from puberty to menopause, but this does not mean that it is wrong to interfere with this process. We need to understand nature and develop the best theories we can to explain why things are as they are, because only in that way can we work out what the consequences of our actions are likely to be; but it would be a serious mistake to assume that natural ways of doing things are incapable of improvement." I can add this to the page if you like, but I don't understand why you've decided to hold this point to a higher standard than the other examples on the page (which do not include quotes in their references). Drevolt (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't say "appeal to nature" anywhere? --Ronz (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ”There would still be an error of reasoning in the assumption that because this process is natural it is right” - That is verbatim from the text. —Drevolt (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking over the other examples, their sources seem far better in general or in the detail of relevant context. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please post the specific quotes that you found from the cited sources that sets them apart from the Singer text? None of the other cited sources included page numbers, and I would appreciate it if you could add page numbers and quotations from them. I’m certainly not trying to question your intentions here or claim any kind of bias regarding the source material, but it seems like you’re applying very uneven standards to this new example compared to the other examples. —Drevolt (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So the answer is that no, it does not say "appeal to nature" at all. The context seems too far removed from the subject to use.
 * I've simply looked at the other references as used.
 * Baggini looks very close to what I was asking for, so I'll assume it needs no discussion.
 * Flew, though not as good as Baggini, is an introduction to critical thinking. That's close enough from my perspective.
 * Gavura is the worst of the three. I'm glad it's available online to check. I think the context in it is far superior to Singer's. --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked you to post specific quotes from the cited sources as examples. If you are convinced that the Singer passage is somehow deficient compared to the others, you’re going to need to back that claim up with specific quotes. Regardless though, it seems clear as day to me that the Singer passage makes for a very relevant example regarding an important issue in applied ethics, which is exactly the sort of thing that should be used as an example on pages like this.
 * If you think this is such an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy that you plan on continuing to attempt to remove it in the future, I would be happy to call an admin into this to help arbitrate. I don’t think that it should have to come to that though, and I hope you’ll be reasonable about this. It sincerely does seem like you mean well here, but this is a case where I think it’s important to separate your preferred kinds of sources and official Wikipedia policy. —Drevolt (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * you’re going to need to back that claim up with specific quotes Not at all. Why do you think so?
 * ...call an admin... That's not the role of admins. Take a look at WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that WP:SOAP, the policy you've been repeatedly invoking, explicitly states that while Wikipedia is obviously not a soapbox for "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise", it is also the case that "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". The example is doing just that: Reporting the view of a prominent philosopher on an applied case where appeals to nature are commonly made without endorsing the view in any way. Feel free to add responses from the rest of the literature or other sources, but as it stands, WP:SOAP is plainly not applicable.

You also brought up WP:SYNTH, which is a policy that involves combining several different sources in a way supported by none of the individual sources (e.g. not applicable in this case). Neither is any kind of original research claim. Please take a look at What SYNTH is not and read over WP:OR again.

Lastly, and this is something I mentioned in a previous edit summary, please give the WP:POV Railroad page a read. Responding to edits that fix problems you had with something by endlessly citing various policy pages and failing to fully explain how those policies are applicable is not an acceptable way of conducting yourself on Wikipedia. --Drevolt (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and we're getting into WP:IDHT at this point. I've identified why I think the source is inferior to the others. I've identified the policies. We disagree.
 * You've been pointed to WP:DR. If you're not interested in finding another way to address this, I'm happy to. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT deals with consensus. There is no consensus here. The only other editor who has been involved in this is someone who has reverted several of your edits for the same reason that I have reverted your edits, namely that you're determined to treat a neutral discussion of a relevant example given in a reliable source as pushing a specific point of view. You're welcome to have your own opinion of the subject matter, but you've switched to denying the reliability of clearly reliable sources, removing huge chunks of relevant information that does not violate Wikipedia editing policy, and citing irrelevant Wikipedia policies in order to support your unwarranted edits. If you're still convinced that you're in the right here despite all of the evidence weighing against you here and the multiple editors who think that you're not acting in accordance with Wikipedia policy, take this to dispute resolution. Please do not try to start an edit war over this. Drevolt (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved from article: Examples


Some popular examples of the appeal to nature can be found on labels and advertisements for food, clothing, and alternative herbal remedies. Labels may use the phrase "all-natural", to imply that products are environmentally friendly and safe. However, whether or not a product is "natural" is irrelevant, in itself, in determining its safety or effectiveness. Some compounds found in nature are for example powerful poisons.

It is also common practice for medicine to be brought up as an appeal to nature, stating that medicine is "unnatural" and therefore should not be used. This extends to practices such as vaccination.

On the topic of meat consumption, Peter Singer argues that it is fallacious to say that eating meat is morally acceptable simply because it is part of the "natural way”, as the way that humans and other animals do behave naturally has no bearing on how we should behave. Thus, Singer claims, the moral permissibility or impermissibility of eating meat must be assessed on its own merits, not by appealing to what is "natural".

The more I look at these as a whole, the more I think we should reject any examples if they do not meet the criteria I mention in the previous discussion: The reference should be written by an expert, on a relevant topic (the subject of informal fallacies as it pertains logic, rhetoric, etc), containing detailed content specifically about appeals to nature. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've said this to you before: Logicians simply do not write about these topics, mainly because they just aren't interested in them. These are applications of logical principles, and they are thus discussed by applied philosophers who work on applied philosophical issues. I don't know who you think these experts on informal logical fallacies and rhetoric are, but it's very clearly not the case that someone has to fit your narrow definition in order to be qualified to discuss these issues. Not only that, but the examples help to make the fallacy vivid in a way that would otherwise not be clear to a lot of readers. If such a standard were applied across Wikipedia as a whole, the quality of articles would be significantly diminished. --Drevolt (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Logicians simply do not write about these topics Julian Baggini and Antony Flew both meet the criteria, right? --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your criteria? No, they do not. Neither Baggini nor Flew is a logician (or an expert on rhetoric, unless you simply define all philosophers as experts on rhetoric). But Wikipedia standards for cited sources? Yes, Baggini and Flew, as well as Singer, are experts in the field of philosophy. The Gauvra example is from a medicine-oriented source, and that's not my specialization, so I can't speak to whether or not it should be considered a reliable source or not, but having looked it over I don't have any problems with it being cited as an example here. --Drevolt (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one arguing for "logicians" in a narrow manner. I'm not. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. You said the following: "We should be using examples from prominent sources on the topic of logic, or something similar". You also claimed: "The reference should be written by an expert, on a relevant topic (the subject of informal fallacies as it pertains logic, rhetoric, etc), containing detailed content specifically about appeals to nature". The cited sources are not logic texts, and only the Flew text could be construed as some kind of rhetoric text (although again, Flew did not primarily work on this stuff, so calling him an "expert" on rhetoric is a bit of a stretch unless you consider all philosophers experts on rhetoric). All four sources used for examples, however, are united in directly covering the fallacy involved in making appeals to nature while discussing applied issues related to philosophy (although the medical article is an outlier in approaching the fallacy from a non-philosophical perspective).
 * 2. Use of the NPOV template requires that you clearly articulate what the neutrality issue is, and if I'm being perfectly honest, I don't think you've been very clear in describing the problem. Could you please explain, based on NPOV policy and not just on your preferred set of criteria for sources, why citing the relevant view of a notable philosopher as an example is unacceptable here? Given that this is standard practice in philosophy articles, do you think that this is somehow objectionable only in this case, or do you think that covering firsthand accounts of the views of notable philosophers constitutes a POV violation? If it is the latter, do you therefore think that there are widespread POV violations in the vast majority of philosophy articles? --Drevolt (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My first comment basically addresses all your concerns: As editors of Wikpedia, we should not be the ones choosing examples and saying they are noteworthy. Such selection should be left to experts, and should be from the context of informal logic, rhetoric, etc.
 * You've already made it clear, and I've quoted you, Logicians simply do not write about these topics. So restricting ourselves to logicians is a waste of time. Please drop it.
 * If we include examples at all, Julian Baggini and Antony Flew are indisputably superior to the other two. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When did I bring up logicians in the last message? I was pointing out that your definition of "expert" was deeply flawed and not in conformity with Wikipedia standards, I've already moved on from talking about logicians. You also didn't offer up the very specific thing that I was asking you for: Why, according to NPOV policy and not just your preferred set of criteria, is there a problem with having an example section like this in an article of this sort? And where does the policy state that you cannot offer examples from notable primary sources in the relevant field? --Drevolt (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find consensus for acceptable criteria. This is something I do a great deal of, so I'm very familiar with the policies, guidelines, and consensus. Your not liking/understanding that doesn't make a case for something different. If you're not interested in working with me to build consensus, then leave the article to others who are. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's great that you're familiar with policies, guidelines, and consensus. Since you are, you probably already know that the the NPOV template is not supposed to be added to an article section if "it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." Without this requirement, it would be easy for people to abuse NPOV policy in order to suppress content that they disagreed with or simply didn't like, and the NPOV template guidelines specifically encourage editors to remove the template in the absence of a clear explanation. I don't have a problem discussing the criteria that ought to be employed in an article like this, but given the fact that it's common practice to use examples and sources of the kind seen in this section of the article, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask you to justify the use of the NPOV template here. So I'm going to ask you again: What is the specific point of policy according to which there is a neutrality issue with this section? --Drevolt (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, see my very first comment to you, which I quoted for you once already. Perhaps you could ask specific questions about it or demonstrate some other interest in working with me? --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re willfully ignoring what I’m asking. Please back up the claims from the first quote with actual Wikipedia policy. I’m interested in trying to improve the page, and that includes assessing whether you’re actully standing on firm ground with respect to policy or if you’re just selectively enforcing it because you disagree with added content. NPOV policy dictates that the template you added can and should be removed if you fail to explain why the section is a violation of NPOV policy. —Drevolt (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with the Singer-referenced content

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"On the topic of meat consumption, Peter Singer argues that it is fallacious to say that eating meat is morally acceptable simply because it is part of the 'natural way”, as the way that humans and other animals do behave naturally has no bearing on how we should behave. Thus, Singer claims, the moral permissibility or impermissibility of eating meat must be assessed on its own merits, not by appealing to what is 'natural'."

Since we're getting nowhere with the discussions above, I'll summarize my concerns: Basically, it violates multiple policies to use this as an example in this article, and any inclusion criteria that would allow such content would allow anything that vaguely appears to be an appeal to nature. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:V violation because the reference doesn't include "appeal to nature".
 * WP:SYN violation to assume that the quoted text from the ref is an example of an appeal to nature.
 * WP:NOT/POV violations that it is of any encyclopedic worth in helping explain the topic, that it is a noteworthy example of the topic, and that the topic of meat consumption is a noteworthy example.
 * I’m going to respond to each of your claims individually for the sake of communicating the problems here as clearly as possible and making sure that all of your concerns are fully addressed.
 * On your first point: “Appeal to nature” is not a common phrase in the philosophical community, but the logical fallacy involved is well-known. The fallacy is explicitly mentioned by Singer in the form of an “error of reasoning in the assumption that because this process is natural it is right”. This is exactly what an appeal to nature is, by definition. If we are going to be pedantic and say that the exact words “appeal to nature” must appear in the source, Wikipedia should also be purged of all historical references written before a given term was coined, including the Rousseau quote cited in this article. (NB: I don’t think this would be a reasonable thing to do, I’m using the example to point out how frequently sources are cited that discuss the same idea as an article while wording it slightly differently. You plainly cannot contest that this IS the same idea being discussed.)
 * On your second point: As I mentioned earier, this is a blatant misinterpretation of WP:SYN, which only applies when multiple sources are combined in order to reach conclusions not contained in any of the individual sources. Only one source is being used in this example, and that source directly discusses the logical fallacy.
 * On your third point: We have already covered the fact that this is an example discussed in a widely-read applied ethics text by a notable philosopher. On what grounds are you questioning whether or not this is a useful or notable example?
 * Again, selective and excessive enforcement of policies for the sake of suppressing notable views you disagree with is POV railroading (see also: WP:GAME) and has no place on Wikipedia. I ask that you look all of this over carefully and reconsider whether any of your complaints can actually be substantiated. —Drevolt (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. That didn't address my concerns, but then you're a new editor. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , what concerns did I not address? And what do you mean with but then you're a new editor? --MrClog (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC for Singer-referenced content

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the content referenced to Singer (See above for full quote) be included as an example of an appeal to nature. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No It violates NOT, V, OR, and POV as referenced. The reference does not mention "appeal to nature" (V and OR problems), OR is required to conclude that it is an appeal to nature, the example appears to be an attempt to promote and give weight to the ethics of meat consumption (NOT, SOAP, POV), and it is not a noteworthy example as sourced (POV, NOT). --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - The example is noteworthy. The reference doesn't say "appeal to nature" but what it does say is unambiguous enough to conclude that it means appeal to nature. The example in no way says that eating meat is wrong, it says that certain individuals use appeals to nature as a fallacious argument for eating meat. I further went into my opinion in my third opinion response above. --MrClog (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - The cited passage is unquestionably about an appeal to nature, and is written by an authoritative figure in philosophy on a substantive philosophical issue. Examples that cite the views held or arguments made in the relevant literature are not violations of POV as long as they are described in neutral terms, which is clearly the case here. The purported violations all seem to be fairly dubious, please see discussion in previous sections for more on this (particularly the comment beginning with “I’m going to respond to...”). —Drevolt (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes – I agree with the above, and note that Singer's argument has a place somewhere and unless you want to introduce another article just for statements like his (without the word "appeal") this article seems the proper place for it. Jzsj (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I've publicized this RfC at OR/N and POV/N per WP:RfC. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes "An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural'" this seems to be excalty what Singer is referring to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes When Singer states There would still be an error of reasoning in the assumption that because this process is natural it is right. (bold added), that is clearly describing an appeal to nature as a fallacy. As the example neither argues for or against meat consumption, it isn't WP:SOAP; the example says deciding the morality of meat consumption needs arguments other than the appeal to nature. It seems to be a strong example for helping readers understand the fallacy. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes per above. Buffs (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes (from NPOV noticeboard) I concur with Drevolt's individual responses to the concerns of WP:V, OR, and POV above. It doesn't make sense to require the specific phrase "appeal to nature" to appear in the appeal to nature, when the definition does appear. Safrolic (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I concur with Schazjmd. Barca (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Close?

 * There seems to be clear consensus for inclusion., are you OK if this RfC gets ended? It has been a week and there doesn't seem to be a snowball in hell's chance that the consensus will change. --MrClog (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please let it run a normal course. It's been four days since the last response. There's no rush. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion
To start this discussion, I wrote, We should be using examples from prominent sources on the topic of logic, or something similar. I don't see how choosing examples from other sources can be done in a neutral manner otherwise. As editors of Wikpedia, we should not be the ones choosing examples and saying they are noteworthy. Such selection should be left to experts, and should be from the context of informal logic, rhetoric, etc. We have two examples that fit this criteria, Baggini (2004) and Flew (1998). A superior Wikipedia article would not need any examples at all, but at least we should use inclusion criteria that gives us clear and useful examples while preventing spam, soapboxing, etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you mean this to be part of the survey for the RfC? --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * fixed it, thank you. Barca (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

origyear = }} Armangharibi13 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * origprop =
 * laterprop =
 * seealso =
 * MeshID =

Peter Singer`s appeal to nature
Hello,

Despite the very long discussion, I may want to emphasize the point about the real issue with Singer`s point.

Firstly, a known or acceptable philosopher is debatable, especially in Singer`s case.

Secondly, the reason we even doubt his legitimacy is because of his bias towards animals, which is being pushed through unrelated matters.

Thirdly, there are about 3.5 gazillion examples to be made, and this one HAS to stay, despite the arguably problematic nature of his opinions?

Yes, it`s a simple example to catch, but along the way, it pushes unrelated agenda on a supposedly objective matter / website.

Also, his basic premise ignores a few things:

a. SOME people claim it is natural therefore it must be good, but, natural also, or mainly, refers to the biological and evolutionary meaning as well: We are biologically and have developed to eat meat and IF we avoid it, we will incur health problems and so his point is invalid, because it is morally acceptable that hurting yourself for ideologies is immoral.

b. by his own words, he fails to see the "merits" of meat and brings fourth a point about morality while subjectively ignoring its merits in the first place historically and biologically.

c. it is false to use a bad example to explain a notion / idea, as shown, when the idea is false in by itself.

All in all, it is a bad example to use and ignore his REAL underline messages through the guise of moral superiority. Yes, he doesnt claim so, but is pretty clear through is general manner and ideas.

Also, he may not claim this, but I believe he himself falls to: https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-novelty/amp/#Examples

Removed paragraph from lead
From my perspective, the following paragraph, which used to conclude the lead, is very far from a neutral, encyclopedic argument:

For example, it might be argued that polio is good because it is natural. In practice, polio has little to recommend it, and if there were any good effects to be found, they would not be specifically because it's a natural disease, as an artificial disease could well have the same properties.

This is an argument against a certain kind of unthinking bias, which adds more bias than it subtracts.

What it rejects could be termed a philosophy of biocratic fatalism (parallel to theocratic fatalism; see problem of evil).

The theocratic argument goes like this:
 * God created the universe
 * God is infinitely good
 * therefore the sum total of the universe is infinitely good
 * polio is part of the universe
 * God moves in mysterious ways
 * free will is not free as in beer
 * suck it up, pussycat
 * adversity breeds character
 * character breeds admission into the eternal kingdom

It your culture is steeping in that argument chain (as my childhood was, with my father in the Christian ministry) you might be tempted to bring a certain set of perspectives to the question of appeal to nature, such as allowing the legitimacy of any appeal to nature mandating a broad-spectrum fatalism concerning all things "natural".



Closer to the heart of the matter, we live in a philosophically uncertain relationship with nature. We want to change things, but we don't want to drive the sustaining apple cart over a cliff. There's a central problem of induction in determining precisely where this boundary lies.

I would slot polio 80% into the "clear" quadrant of the Cynefin framework. In that sense, it's a cherry picked example. Normally we don't expend a great deal of philosophical hot air debating deep conceptual issues in the clear quadrant.

We already have the eradication of smallpox as an example of surprisingly few unanticipated consequences. We always do this. When we get any result this clean, we completely forget about it as we fixate on the ones that got out of hand. Without blame, no attention. QED.

On the other hand, a great deal of nature lies on the boundary between chaos and complex (almost as vexing). Pretty much the whole of ecology lies in "complex", despite much spilling out into true chaos or mere complications.

A central, existential issue in any biological context is reproduction and continuation of the species.



There are many people these days who believe that cultural plasticity has entirely kicked nature to the curb concerning the ancient nature versus nurture debate. However, there's an unstated superposition principle. If culture can remake any single aspect of nature that you point to, there's no principled reason why culture can't win all these battles simultaneously. You see, every one of these cultural interventions (over nature) is linearly additive without friction. Linear systems don't generate chaos. But non-linear systems generate chaos at the drop of a pin, and with more elements interacting simultaneously, tendency toward chaos as a governing dynamic rises exponentially. It's barmy to leave this unstated. We have no philosophical reason to believe that thousands or millions of disparate cultural innovations are linearly additive; meanwhile, there is much empirical evidence to the contrary.

There are two main issues in the reproductive domain that are culturally active. We mainly fixate on sexual preference. This debate has a long history of invoking the natural order (whether biocratic or theocratic). Far less contentious is modern birth control. We all know this is a giant, unknowable experiment in the constitution of the human species and our final footprint on planet Earth. We are 100% playing with something we don't understand. Already with the inversion of the population pyramids in almost all wealthy societies, we are in terra incognito in our intergenerational politics. Populism is surging. Chaos has many possible fathers. This is one.

In the formal context, modern induction works by extrapolating over similarity. See AIXI for the gory details. When we start looking for similarities in the rest of global biodiversity for apex populations with highly inverted population pyramids, we don't find any. It's not "natural" in the sense of having any natural history to contemplate (or ransack for supposed guardrails).

Oh, but because our intervention against polio troubles us barely at all, the extension of "natural" to the introduction of the birth control pill in the 1950s is a bird of the same feather?

I would argue the contrary. Birds of the same feather only if the bird is a scarecrow, and its wings are fabricated out of straw.

I'm clearly too deep into this to make an impartial edit, so this shall count as my entire contribution. &mdash; MaxEnt 14:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I should stop while I'm ahead, but it's never been my strong suit.

For example, it might be argued that bastard reproduction is good because it is natural. In practice, bastardism has little to recommend it, and if there were any good effects to be found, they would not be specifically because bastardism is a natural human drive, as a Handmaid's Tale theocracy could have the same properties.

As edited, I find this vaguely plausible; at least it's now situated in an appropriate quadrant of debate. However, the syllogism has entirely shed its original patina of bland apple pie. &mdash; MaxEnt 14:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)