Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appeal to nature


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn and there are no other "delete" opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to nature

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedurally completing good-faith nomination on behalf of ; rationale left here was "Article is completely political, based on private blogs, at odds with another properly sourced article on the same subject".

For my part, I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss content issues on the talk page, including any possible redirection if this is covered adequately elsewhere. This is pretty clearly a notable topic that we should cover, with this title leading the reader to where it is covered, so any issues are with the content and how our information on this and related subjects should be organised, which are not matters for a deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep No valid reason given for AfD nom. I've added two book citations, both by professional philosophers, the latter of which (Flew's) goes into some detail about the common use of this fallacy. 94.194.86.160 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both references are to popular publications, not philosophical or academic texts and contain no citations. Popular publications are judged by and primarily written for public opinion and can routinely contain maveric claims. Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete
 * Keep It would be best if the appeal to nature could somehow be impartialy explored here and i am hopeful that is possible with the extra interest which this deletion proposal has begged - perhaps clumsily and at times too robustly. Thankyou for your patience and valuable attention. Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a notable phrase, often connected with 'naturalistic fallacy' But unlike naturalistic fallacy, no definitive philosophical sources exist for it. So the article is based on populist sources and carries populist arguments as philosophical ones. The article is not wp:philosophy, it is blog/pop philosophy. Expert review of it is what is needed. Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What expert review can take place if the article is deleted? You don't have to be an expert in philosophy to see that "strong delete" and "expert review of it is what is needed" are logically incompatible statements. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, i mean expert review should be able to determine if the article should be deleted. An amature vote on the matter may just perpetuate a modern myth.. Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I got to the article from a link elsewhere on the web today; that indicates it's useful.  Even if it's a popular idea rather than one from people with Philosophy PhDs, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it.  However, I don't think that's the case; I think it has relevant formal meaning that editors just haven't found the right sources for yet, as many of those sources may be old enough to appear only in physical books.  Warren Dew (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has relevant formal meaning going back hundreds of years of use in philosophical works. Just google scholar 'appeal to nature' you can find endless instances of term used quite neutrally to refer to arguments which make in some way 'an appeal to nature', similar to 'appeal to fact' or 'appeal to reason...' these are common phrases of the philosophical lexicon. There has never even been a philosophical argument that appeals to nature are inherently or most often fallacious. There is no source for such argument it because it is an absurd proposition. Nature is far too complex and large a concept, for all arguments which might be said to appeal to it to be ruled out of consideration. Not even Hume came close to claiming this. He argued how appeals to nature can be made fallaciously - insubstantially, that bare, 'unsystematic' appeals to nature commit fallacy, (as do most unsystematic appeals) but never that the kind of argument itself is fallacious. In my review below i included a direct quote from Principia Ethica confirming the validity of a particular kind of appeal to nature.


 * wp:philosophy should not be parroting absurdity just because it has somehow gained popularity. And people should not be getting directed here by sites claiming that this absurdity is 'useful' (Useful for what?) Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * delete unless the first paragraph can be backed up by citations from an established logic or philosophy textbook or to papers published in major philosophy journals. If appeal to nature is an accepted fallacy like Arguementum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) there should be no problem finding the citations.--Logicalgregory (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We do not delete articles about notable terms ("endless instances"...) just because a paragraph needs to be rewritten. On Feb-8 I edited the first paragraph to specify fallacy of relevance because it was somewhat ambiguous, possibly due to the general confusion with naturalistic fallacy. It does not say (and never has said) it's a logical fallacy or even a faulty generalization/fallacy of defective induction (like argumentum ad verecundiam, ironically, an "appeal to authority") which “reaches a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced. This inductive fallacy is any of several errors of inductive inference”. I specifically clarified that it's an informal fallacy (as opposed to a logical fallacy) because, as the article says, in the normative sense it “may resemble an appeal to tradition”.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The popular use of the term regarding anything from vegan cat food to all-natural cigarettes has been made clear, I think, and this is not contradictory to the bulk of its history, which was hardly "neutral", (whatever that means, compare lumen naturalis [lumen naturalis rationis] in medieval philosophy/theology). As pointed out by the sophists, it can be used to argue toward thesis or antithesis with equal facility in the normative sense... I didn't have time to edit the third paragraph on... and I didn't have time to get into it with a new user who, assuming WP:AGF, didn't seem to fully grasp WP:NPOV and WP:NPA... but once the dust settles from wild polemics like: “I believe this page is so bad, that no self respecting wp:philosophy editor will attempt to defend it, even if they were politicaly inclined to”, (followed up, no less, by the expert request  and much insistence directed at the WP Philosophy project,  etc.), I do intend to sort out the Moore/Hume confusion and add a section on ancient usage that expands, for example, on the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica (not a "blog", Lisnabreeny seems to be referring to the external links): “One of the most famous doctrines associated with the Sophistic movement was the opposition between nature and custom or convention in morals. It is probable that the antithesis did not originate in Sophistic circles but was rather earlier; but it was clearly very popular and figured largely in Sophistic discussions. The commonest form of the doctrine involved an appeal from conventional laws to supposedly higher laws based on nature. Sometimes these higher laws were invoked to remedy defects in actual laws and to impose more stringent obligations; but usually it was in order to free men from restrictions unjustifiably imposed by human laws that the appeal to nature was made. In its extreme form the appeal involved the throwing off of all restraints upon self-interest and the desires of the individual (e.g., the doctrine of Callicles in Plato's Gorgias that might, if one possesses it, is actually right), and it was this, more than anything else, that gave support to charges against the Sophists of immoral teaching. On other occasions the terms of the antithesis were reversed and human laws were explicitly acclaimed as superior to the laws of nature and as representing progress achieved by human endeavour. In all cases the laws of nature were regarded not as generalized descriptions of what actually happens in the natural world (and so not like the laws of physics to which no exceptions are possible) but rather as norms that people ought to follow but are free to ignore. Thus the appeal to nature tended to mean an appeal to the nature of man treated as a source for norms of conduct. To Greeks this appeal was not very novel. It represented a conscious probing and exploration into an area wherein, according to their whole tradition of thought, lay the true source for norms of conduct. If Callicles in Plato's Gorgias represents a position actually held by a living Sophist when he advocates free rein for the passions, then it was easy for Plato to argue in reply that the nature of man, if it is to be fulfilled, requires organization and restraint in the license given to the desires of particular aspects of it; otherwise the interests of the whole will be frustrated. Both Plato and Aristotle, in basing so much of their ethics on the nature of man, are only following up the approach begun by the Sophists.”  Logicalgregory, if you feel its stronger, in fact, than an informal fallacy, then by all means find appropriate references to that effect, but this topic is certainly not within the sole purview of philosophy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments were not about an appeal to nature, they were about citations. --Logicalgregory (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Lisnabreeny, you may strikeout what you've previously written on this page and make corrections in a new comment below it. You may not simply rewrite it as you've been doing. For permissible rewrites on article talk pages, please see WP:REFACTOR. Also, please read WP:MINOR. I think you'd make a fantastic editor if you decide to stay and, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be frustrated with the slow response from the WP community at large. Please understand that these things can take a long time to sort out and comments in various places directed toward the philosophy project won't help. Please be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP and understand that you have received feedback but "holding out" for a so-called "expert" whom you're certain would support your opinion... well, that's not likely to achieve the goal. You should be aware that if the page is deleted, you cannot simply make a new one consistent with your outline below. I think you have some valid points, but WP is not going to inform everyone they're mistaken, so to speak. At the end of the day, people will need to draw such conclusions for themselves. In general, a firm commitment to WP:CONSENSUS, (with lots of spare-time and patience), is how to make a significant and lasting impact on WP content.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Machine Elf - I made minor unattributed edits to improve readability, nothing which altered the context of any responses, and nothing i would wish to strikeout. You are very welcome to restore anything you would like to address.
 * Patience is always a great virtue, but i came to this article over a month 3 weeks ago (sorry feels longer)), and immediately requested attention, i increased and discussed requests with little response. I have read for dozens of hours philosophy texts to inform my position, and spent many hours in discussion, and researching and composing this deletion/review request. I have not been as inclined to wait for response as someone who is comfortable with the way the article is/was.
 * I did not become an editor to improve this page, i have been watching and contributing to various other pages for months. I do not have a great amount of spare time to contribute, but would like contribute occasionaly, hopefuly not alone in matters as contentious as this has been. Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I should (and do) apologise for my polemic.Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Argument for deletion from Lisnabreeny
I believe the Philosophers of wp:philosophy should be seriously concerned about this article which has gained widespread faith and reproduction throughout the internet. Because what is being defamed here, is not just a person, or a company, but one of the most important concepts of our time - Nature.

In this age of great technological sophistication and decision - discussions which must essentialy involve appeals to nature (what may nature offer, confer, benefit? what it may not?) have never been more relevant. Yet heading the ranks of a populist attack on the concept, this article has been broadcasting that such discussions themselves are fallacious by subject.

People are sent to wp:philosophy, and read articles which cite it, and articles mirrored from it - to be informed that there is no need to investigate any merits or problems with arguments involving appeals to nature, the appearance of this argument type itself is ruled out of sense. Looking back through the edit history, this has been wp:philosophy's position, for years now...

Modern Myth

After much searching for a valid argument or origin for the claim that 'appeals to nature' as commonly understood, or employed in philosophical work, are inherently fallacious, i am of the opininon that this claim is a modern myth, born of basic misunderstandings and circulated widely due to its apparent utility in certain debates.

It is my understanding that appeals to nature have not been argued in any philosophical works to be inherently or fundamentally invalid or fallacious. I have read dozens of uses of the term in the course of researching this deletion review, in published philosophical works, and not one of the uses supposes that term implies fallacious argument.

Even the most critical, somewhat ambiguous work of Moore's Principia Ethica pg221 states [] "...of the arguments commonly used in Theodicies; no such argument succeeds in justifying the fact that there does exist even the smallest of the many evils which this world contains. The most that can be said for such arguments is that, when they make appeal to the principle of organic unity, their appeal is valid in principle."

In another example philosophical text, the term is used repeatedly, descriptively, yet no use of it confers fault on it:

Eudaimonism and the Appeal to Nature in the Morality of Happiness: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1995,Johm M Cooper Princeston university.[] "This first appeal to nature is, therefore, an appeal to nature as benevolent, and therefore to the instincts it provides animals with as being ones that it is for their own good to act upon. It is nature as normative, not nature as a source of inescapabilities and unalterabilities, that the Stoics first appeal to. There is a second appeal to nature, too, and this one goes a great deal farther outside the 'ethical' as conceived by Annas in an effort to reach normative conclusions."

- We could fill pages here with non-presumptive uses of the term in actual philosophical works. These uses are anyones to search and review.

What the current page needs to defend itself against this charge -that it is charging fallacy on the simple appearance of an appeal to nature, without any actual support from philosophical work, is at the very least to begin with, one clear dismissive use in a suitable philos. text.

An article for appeal to nature would ideally refer to how this term has been defined in philosophy. However it has not been defined in philosophy, or at least neither i or the preceeding authors have discovered a definition. The term is often confused with Moore's description of naturalistic fallacy, but Moore's work does not support this confusion (not only refering to the previous quote).

What is wrong now, is that this rumoured fallaciousness is being carried throughout the web as the definition of the term, by unthinking search engines and by understandably misinformed people, who are being told by sources with no editorial standards and wp:philosophy (most prominently), that this invented fallacy is an actual philosophical concept. (google define:appeal to nature)

The current state of the article is such that it cannot be improved, it needs adjudicated here and deleted so as not to be edit warred back into place. It should ideally be replaced with a proper explaination of the term - a primitive example draught of which i include here for the review:Lisnabreeny (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Softening of the existing article mid review
The position of the existing article has moved to the claim that all appeals to nature are fallacies of relevance / informal fallacies. This is telling as there is no attempted substantiation or reference that all appeals to nature have been shown to fail to address the issue in question (as per definition of fallacy of relevance.

In its current state the article still displays an unrestrained range of political examples, each of which is a complex case yet presented as a simple 'appeal to nature fallacy' - a failure to address the issue in question.

The article still contains no references or citations of philosophical source which establish ,or even appear to presume that appeals to nature are inherently fallacious. Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Example Replacement
Example draught article (quite irreconcilable with the current)

This article relates to appeal to nature in philosophical understanding of the term, for other uses of appeal to nature see disambiguation.

In philosophical works, an appeal to nature is a type of argument which involves an evaluation of a natural property or natural characteristic of an object involved in the argument. Of the type "fish live in water so fish should stay in water" or "people have not wings so they should not fly" When the value placed on the object by the appeal to nature cannot be substantiated by evidence and reasoning, the argument can be said to be a naturalistic fallacy or fallacy of relevance.

Appeal to nature in Philosophy

In modern philosophical works, appeals to nature are routinely identified and most often identified neutrally, without presumption of error. There are no well known academic texts to resolve the matter of the logical merit of an 'appeal to nature' itself, educational resources differ on the terms status, normaly treating the term under the heading of Humes concept of naturalistic fallacy, and often including cautionary commentary eg []. "it is highly uncharitable to charge anyone who advances the sorts of arguments to which Moore alludes as having committed a logical fallacy. Rather, charity demands that we interpret such arguments as enthymatic, and usually this is easy enough. For example, we should understand ‘X is pleasant, therefore X is good’ as an enthymeme whose suppressed premise is ‘Whatever is pleasant is good’. Nor must the non-naturalist even quarrel with such a suppressed premise."

Appeal to nature in popular culture

With interpretation of Humes work "Principia Ethica" 1901 which focuses on the question: "what is the nature of the evidence, by which alone any ethical proposition can be proved or disproved, confirmed or rendered doubtful." (viii preface) and includes specific criticism on common appeals to nature and the related 'naturalistic fallacy': the idea that all appeals to nature are inherently fallacious arguments, has many adherents in recent popular culture[][][][][].

Some populist sources champion the idea that appeals to nature are invalid, to the degree of holding up advertisements such as "healthy natural food" as examples of fallacy. It should be noted to respect how philosophical concepts can be easily misapplied to informal media, that product advertisements of any kind, never allude to metaphysical completeness. In fact advertising terms such as "healthy natural food" or "great tasting meals" may not even constitute a single sentence, much less a philosophical clause.

Examples of appeal to nature in philosophical works:

Examples of informal appeals to nature in popular culture:

(The subject can attempt to substantiate their valuation of nature, they may or may not suceed in doing so, but the appeal is not inherently fallacious.)

Examples of argueably insubstantiable and fallacious appeals to nature:

(There is no attempt or concieveable reasoning to value nature, other than the presumption that natural should be better)

see also

naturalistic fallacy

appeal to tradition

naturalism

Ethical_non-naturalism

Lisnabreeny (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Input from Walkinxyz
I think Lisnabreeny is making an important point with this suggestion, but I don't think his proposed revision accomplishes the required task. At the moment his suggestions sound like they are carrying on an argument with the previous version of the article, which I think it has to be agreed, is deeply prejudiced against "nature", and therefore not really worthy of Wikipedia (because of the prejudice).

What is ultimately needed is some explication of the various meanings of "nature" (part of the nature article), such that a discussion of evaluations of "rightness" or "correctness" in our reasoning, with respect to appeals to that concept, have some footing. What I am speaking of here is a priority of meaning to validity, or intelligibility to judgment, in the conceptual scheme of the article.

Nature is a concept that has deep, deep, maybe the deepest possible, of any possible semantic and normative roots. Any discussion of an "Appeal to nature" should acknowledge this, and also therefore acknowledge that a "claim" to naturalness is not just a claim to being right or correct, or even good, but is a claim that at its most basic, possesses some significance to human beings, and it should do this by saying something about what that significance is. At present, the article dismisses that significance, which is as empirical as the day is long.

Unfortunately, if the article is deleted, then we will miss an opportunity to clarify the meaning of this "appeal", which is obviously important enough that is getting attention here from around the web. If we delete it, that will leave a noticeable hole in the fabric of the web.

So what I suggest is that this article be deleted and replaced with a stub-class article that says something like this:


 * An appeal to nature is a form of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a source of meaning and intelligibility for human beings, and which also appeals to the normative or ethical content of that concept for its cogency and/or validity.

And then maybe gives examples, but they are not really necessary at this stage.

Walkinxyz (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to remove the proposal to delete, since what Lisnabreeny has asked for it to be deleted, yet has since asked that an expert review and decide whether that should be done. If that was how he felt, then he should have asked an expert to put the template on (or not), rather than taking it upon himself.

In any case, a number of editors have weighed in on the matter, and the balance is that the article should be kept. However, in its previous form, the article was, as Lisnabreeny correctly points out, badly misleading (in terms of what an "appeal" is) and inexplicably prejudiced against "nature" to the point of being ammunition for baiting environmentalists.

However, I am enough of an "expert" to know that the idea of "appeal to nature" as a fallacy is not going to go away, and that it is important to the philosophical community and to Wikipedia's users and editors. In some cases, it obviously is a fallacy, so that section should be kept, but it has to be marked as a special instance of "appeal to nature" (and should definitely be cleaned up in accordance with Wikipedia's standards).

The fallacy of this article, that "appeal=fallacy" is dead. RIP.

Walkinxyz (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for you intrest Walkinxyz. I first requested assistance with this article i think ~5 3 weeks ago. Went and worked agreeably on nature (philosophy) with a helpful editor. Then I put this article up for deletion, by just adding a tag. At the end of its review time, there were no objections, but with advice from another editor, it was redirected to a section on Naturalistic_fallacy, which still concentrates on possible fallaciousness, but is fairly composed. Then this article was resurrected, so i put this larger deletion review up and tried to attract more attention for it. Honestly now, i do not know if the review must/should finish. I have ended up spending many hours reading texts on appeal to nature, and have a beginner understanding of the concept perhaps. And i would love to learn more about it. (With the lightest understanding i was aware that the concept itself, especially as put in the article, could not be fallacious. Through ad absurdum ~i think.) Anyway, i think it will take maturity and experience to untangle the situation between the concept, and its possible fallaciousness, and rumoured fallaciousness.
 * For myself i have not attempted to write the article, because i have a bias and not enough experience to do so. I think nature has much to offer and understand, yet i am a technician and an engineer. (Not quite a philosopher) Converse to the preceeding intro, i would write something like this:
 * "The 'appeal to nature is' an argument of exceptional merit or an informal 'given'. Appeals to nature most often tend in someway to be perfectly true because of the existential, evolved, omnipresent properties of nature (one of the most important and scrutinised concepts in philosophy and the history of science)"
 * Of course that would be ridiculous! But i think not harder to establish with pop sources than the previous intros.
 * On your belief that we could all try to make reasonable article here, and have a fair chance of success, i will do what is required to recall the deletion process. Perhaps someone can advise. I should remove the appeal to wikipedia philosophy in the project talk page? (just noticed the discussion there) I would like to be able to refer to or backup this review before it disappears. Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, AfD discussions like this are permanent. You found several good WP:RS in amongst those pop sources. The article definitely needs more sources and there's a fair amount of what looks like off-the-cuff exposition (WP:OR) that needs to be replaced with sourced material like that.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no worries Machine Elf Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel that this article should be retained. DS (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.