Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 13

Conceptual model
I undertook some restructuring and made some additions to the conceptual model article. The term conceptual model is used with a fairly precise meaning in data base design and systems analysis, but I do not recall it being used by philosophers. Despite this, the conceptual model article is ranked high importance on the WP Philosophy importance scale. Suggestions and comments would be most welcome here.--Logicalgregory (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rank it low on both imporance and quality (it seems to be alot of OR and Synth, and that's coming from a person whose only true expertise is in the specific field of modeling. Stephen Toulmin used "map" in a similar manner as the article uses "model" (empirical theories as maps - The Philosophy of Science:An Introduction, 1953, chapter iv). I did mathematics for philosophically reinterpreting "error", not as something to be "minimized", but as something to be "optimized" for nonparametric monte carlo bootstraping, and parametric model selection using cross validation as something to be made optimally close to probablistically independent. Mathematicians called this statistics or philosophy, philosophers called it mathematics or statistics, and statisticians called it mathemtics or philosophy. Most in all these fields would rank it "low" on an importance scale for their fields (and rank me still lower). Models more generally, might be considered mid level importance in phil of sci. It might rank higher in phil of mind. PPdd (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment PPdd. I think we need to wait to see if there are any more comments before making further changes here.--Logicalgregory (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment on SYNTHiness - "Model" in logic, applied math, and statistics, and "mental model" in cog psych and PoMind is certainly "high" on an importance scale for those fields, but are these all ever called "conceptual models"? That said, the article is a good place to SYNTH hang various nonphysical models. PPdd (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I once said that mathematicians are like fashion models, over the hill by age 35. Given the SYNTHiness of the conceptual model catch-all aricle, I hope it (or sections of it) does not have an even shorter duration. (Another "conceptual model" is in the following section.) PPdd (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Absurdity constraints and metamodels
I don't know if this is the right WProject for this, but I just started the absurdity article, and could use help on a section regarding "absurdity constraints" re metamodels and model transformations in Model-driven engineering. PPdd (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Help needed with Wittgenstein and Moore's paradox in absurdity article
In the new absurdity article, the section on Moorean absurdity needs expanding, and I was never very good at paraphrasing Wittgenstein's carefully chosen words. PPdd (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Absurdity constants, Suppes, Church, and Currie's paradox
I recall something about "absurdity constants" (not absurdity "constraints") in relations to Suppes' Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Church's thesis, and Curry's paradox, but that is all I remember. Can anyone help with this for the absurdity article? PPdd (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Teaism
While teaism is in The Book of Tea, I think the concept teaism deserves its own article, just like tea ceremony and tea culture. Even if the teaism article it not part of the philosophy project it still is a tea term and concept. icetea8 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah! It could not be more philosophical than just philosophical. Platonykiss (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a tea project yet? Walkinxyz (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have ever been to a tea ceremony, you likely noticed that teaism is an acquired philosophy. PPdd (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Logic
The WikiProject Logic Task List is not being actively updated, but there are many articles in need of attention. Actively updating the task list would help by directing the attention of editors to articles encouraging co-ordination. Philogo (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in editing the Logic articles, then Add to your user page. It will automatically add you to Category:Logic task force members. You may also choose to place the Logic Navigation Banner on your user page by adding  or the Logic Task List by adding.
 * Discuss WikiProject Logic
 * Discuss the WikiProject Logic Task List
 * Update the WikiProject Logic Task List
 * Are my last three posts immediately above better put in the logic tasks force pages? PPdd (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they are OK where they are. Philogo (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Does any body know how or where one can get/generate a list of high importance, low/stub standard of articles in category Logic/falling under the remit of WikiProject Logic? &mdash; Philogos (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to Wikipedia Philosophy
In lieu of the outcome of the review process of appeal to nature, i am thinking of a new article called the "appeal to wikipedia philosophy":

Like the prevailing "Appeal to nature" article, it will quietly sustain a following who are convinced of wp:philo's error, without ever having to cite a single philosophy text to establish the claim. This could be even easier than the appeal to nature, as 'appeal to wp:philo.' is a concept not even written of neutrally as yet in any philosophical texts. Although that means it would loose out on discolouring all the seemingly neutral instances of the term written to date, as the 'appeal to nature' fallacy article does quite effectively.

I apologise for this, i seem to be having trouble getting this article reviewed:View AfD - Appeal to nature Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Lisnabreeny brings up an important point. The first paragraph of the "appeal to nature" article makes "appeal to nature" sound like an established fallacy like "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" (appeal to authority). At least it had me fooled for a moment. But like Lisnabreeny I could not find it anywhere. Perhaps I too was getting confused with the Naturalistic Fallacy which is itself more of a theory than an established fallacy. People at WP philosophy should look at this.--Logicalgregory (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be an article called "appeal to nature", and I think it should be an important topic for Wikipedia philosophy, but if I may… imagine if the article were titled "appeal to reason" instead, and you replaced all instances of "nature" appearing in the article with the word "reason" and the word "natural" with "reasonable".

You would have "Appeal to reason is a fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is reasonable, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unreasonable or irrational. In this type of informal fallacy, reason implies an ideal or desired state of being,[1] a state of how things were, should be, or how they are normally: in this sense an appeal to reason may resemble an appeal to tradition."

The fact is that this doesn't begin to tell us anything about what it is that is being appealed to when we appeal to "nature" or "reason" (or indeed, "tradition"). Both concepts make (perhaps equally) strong claims on human beings, and an appeal to either one shouldn't be disparaged as "fallacies". I would therefore object to the neutrality of this article, and also suggest that it isn't, in fact, what it claims to be about. If any kind of "appeal" can be debunked as easily as the appeal to nature is here, then we should be worried about the very possibility of "appeal" or "grounds" for argument tout court.

Walkinxyz (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If we take the naturalistic fallacy (and I admit it's been a LONG time since I studied it) to be a type of fallacy which assumes that ∀x(Mx ↔ Nx) [where M is a moral predicate eg 'is good' and N is a natural predicate eg 'is yellow'] is either (a) contigently true or (b) necesary true, then an argument which takes "is good" as M and "is natural" would be the so-called "appeal to nature" and a token of the naturalistic fallacy. On this reading of the naturalistic fallacy, token of the falacy are a sub-set of arguments with missing premises (i.e those arguments with missing premises wehere the missing premiss is of the form ∀x(Mx ↔ Nx). It is easy to think of other token of the naturulistic fallacy so defined setting, e.g setting M='is pious' and N='loved by the gods'; M='is good' N='increases net human happiness'; M='is good' N='has no alternative'; M='is good in some society' N='said to be good in some society'; M='is good' N='said to be good by an authority or expert' The question for the Encyclopaedia is whether (a) all or any such tokens of the naturalistic fallacy so defined should have their own article or (b) whether they should be given mentions as examples in the article on the naturulistic fallacy.  Really IMHO the naturalistic fallacy so defined is an exemplification of the is-ought gap.  Philogo (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A point at issue here is whether an appeal to nature should be classified /described as a fallacy in the Wikipedia. It seems that there is no authoritative body of existing research that will resolve this issue one way or the other. Therefore, Wikipedians are now discussing whether an appeal to nature is a fallacy, and to do this they seem to be making original arguments. But this is original research and is against WP Policy. I shall call this the Wikipedians' Paradox. It goes like this:

The Wikipedia shall contain no original research.

The Wikipedia can classify all new academic work.

Some new academic work has not been classified.

The act of classification is original research.

This is just a rough draft of the paradox, but I think people will get the idea. I have noticed that various discussion pages throughout the Wikipedia tend to drift into original research, it seems there may be a logical requirement to do so.

Is there really a paradox here?--Logicalgregory (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If (a) the naturalistic fallacy as construed in my former comment is a fallacy, and (b) the so-called appeal to nature fallacy is, as argued above, a token of the naturalistic fallacy then the so-called appeal to nature fallacy is a token of a fallacy, i.e it is an example or instance of the naturalistic fallacy. The natural place, I have suggested, for such tokens or examples, would be within a paragraph headed perhaps "examples" of the article nauralistic fallacy.  This would be achieved by MOVING the article appeal to nature into the article naturalist fallacy. A redirect would refer readers from the former to the latter.  &mdash; Philogos (talk)  15:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My remarks above were not directed at Philogos 12 Feb comment. Personally, I would go along with the idea that the naturalistic fallacy is the result of a hidden premise. I would also want to say that the hidden premise is contingent. Now, is it a fallacy? I would want to say it is a mistake, but not a fallacy. I want to reserve the term fallacy for putative forms of reasoning that lead to self contradiction. That's my idea on that subject. In the Naturalistic fallacy article it does not state that it is, in fact, a fallacy, but only that Moore said it was. So I have no problem with that either. However, in the discussion section of the appeal to nature article the various writers seem to be going into areas that are not covered by Moore and his followers.--Logicalgregory (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking for input on article name

 * See Talk:W. V. Quine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hobbes' "Table of Absurdity" & Phil of Language
In Hobbes' "table of absurdity" propositions are called "absurd," "insignificant," or "senseless". Anyone have knoweldge about this for absurdity article? PPdd (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I can dig something up for this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Love
There is a small dispute going on over at the article love. Someone is allegedly disorganizing the lede with remarks on this and that and keeps editing after reverting a revert without sensible discussion Talk:Love, Talk:Love. Morton Shumway —  talk  13:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC).
 * After another revert, the user partially re-reverted again with reference to the discussion in which he however did not take part since the last revert. Morton Shumway  —  talk  17:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Is it any wonder that there's a dispute about love? Is that even news? ;-) Walkinxyz (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Children's hide-and-seek picture books, and esoteric areas of logic
There was a children's monthly magazine in pediatric dentists' and doctors' offices called Highlands, which had a picture puzzle to try to find hidden things in a drawing. An adult version is at absurdity, where some things are overt, and likely to be deleted, like regarding the absurdity rule in Patrick Suppes' esoteric Logic and Phil of Sci text, but others are more subtle, and may requuire a unusual range of backgrounds in philosophy to find them all. If you do find them, you will be unlikely to delete them, as they are illustrative of the corresponding absurdity concept, so are better than a picture at being worth a thousand words. PPdd (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to Nature
Hi everyone, I've just cleaned up, re-organized and copy-edited the appeal to nature page, and it would be great if an experienced editor could review it and possibly remove the clean-up template.

Thanks. Walkinxyz (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the page is much better now and avoids the problems I was concerned with in my posting on the subject.--Logicalgregory (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou to everyone for your help with this article especially Walkinxyz. I still find it has some ragged edges and bumps, there is still some contention as to whether the term might apply only to arguments which contain certain problems.. The 'missing premise' idea could be from a basic confusion with naturalistic fallacy. I do not even understand why the idea of 'hidden premise' is attached to appeal to nature. I think to consider an appeal to nature, first resolve the context of the natural characteristics involved: there is the nature of humanity, the nature of an ecosystem, the nature of our sun, the nature of another sun... Could modern physics be said to have an appeal to nature? in how the laws of nature discovered nearby, are expected to also apply far away, in space and time - this assumption is tested and seems fairly true, though we do not know about spaces or times beyond visibility, and we dont know where dark matter/energy etc might fit in. To me this is similar to the a.t.n in ethics where the positive or negative effects of behaviours discovered in the animal kingdom, and are expected to be mirrored in human politics or ethics. The differences in the animal systems to human systems, is like a distance, which is presumed to be bridgeable. It is small suprise nature is such a detailed and complex concept, for it is very arguably the greatest part of existence, which physics and other sciences are uncertain, developing accounts of. An argument which avoids including some understanding of the meaning and significance of nature, is a special kind of argument i wonder about. There might be a threshold where unmanipulated reality / nature is so mundane/fundamental to the context, that it is no longer notable. Was it not first discovered that 1+1 = 2, and always 2 (given no hidden details) in nature? And that this observation should carry through all physical and metaphysical 'locations'? The article has yet, not quite got to grips with the rumoured fallacy of appealing to nature.Lisnabreeny (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Science of morality
I'm wondering if we can get some eyes over on Science of morality. I've been uneasy about its existence as a stand-alone article (rather than as a small part of Ethical naturalism) since its creation, and there seem to be a lot of comments recently expressing similar sentiments. I'm considering putting it up for AfD but thought I would call for other editors' opinions here first, since I believe the article's creator is working in genuine good faith and the overall quality of the writing/editing/etc is not bad, so I think it deserves a fair chance. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are trying in a good faith way, but I am not sure this is notable enough to have its own article. No strong opinion at this moment because I'd need more time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Argument#"World-disclosing" arguments - proposed deletion of paragraph
I have suggested that the new paragraph Argument does not enhance the article amd should be deleted - see talk page Talk:Argument . Opinions of other editors invited at Talk:Argument &mdash; Philogos (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * delete The editor began by insisting the lead of appeal to nature must adopt that self-contradicting ambiguity. When I recommended the editor would benefit from reading the validity section in argument, they promptly inserted their POV in that article. I haven't verified, so I'll WP:AGF and assume the philosophers were in a whimsical mood, but as a WP:FRINGE challenge to well defined terms, it's WP:UNDUE weight, and perhaps a few words in the reason article would be more than sufficient? Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * keep "The editor began by insisting the lead of appeal to nature must adopt that self-contradicting ambiguity."


 * I did no such thing. I consistently re-worked the wording, removing a word that was objected to ("content") because it was seen as somewhat misleading, then I re-worked it again, and provided a reference.


 * As for the article actually under discussion here, I have provided further explanations and references. See the talk page Talk:Argument.


 * It's a fringe challenge to which well-defined terms? Walkinxyz (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability (philosophy)
There is no Wikipedia article on notability, just a disambiguation page. There is, of course, a page on Notability in Wikipedia, and we all know what an important and controversial issue that is.

It occurs to me that notability is a concept suitable for philosophical examination. Here are just a few issues:

1) Is notability absolute or relative?

2) What, if any, are the logical or epistemological connections between notability and truth?

3) Does notability fall foul of the Argument from Authority fallacy?

4) Is notability transitive?

5) Does notable mean anything more than famous; and if so, what?

6) Does it make sense to say that the Cretan was a notable liar?

Given the importance of notability in Wikipedia it seems that an article on notability per se would be very useful. The problem is that there do not seem to be any notable sources on the “concept of notability”. --Logicalgregory (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The worst that can happen to it is a speedy deletion. (note: I'm the editor who put the "Just do it!" at the top of the WP:Bold page.) PPdd (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I just put a tag on it, so now the worst that can happen to it is becoming an entry in one of the WP:BJAODN lists, like what happened when "logical positivism vanished in a puff of logic" vanished from logical positivism in a puff of WikiLogic, but made BJAODN. PPdd (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting a a notability tag on the notability article makes me feel that I have just walked into a Franz Kafka novel.--Logicalgregory (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And just like in philosophy, where there is nothing new under the sun, i.e., an existing philosophy of anything, there is also nothing new under the sun in law, i.e., an existing lawsuit about anything - "notability" is a civil tort in Chinese entertainment law. PPdd (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When I started this section I said “There is no Wikipedia article on notability", and I think that was a notable thing to say. However, when I said it, it was true. Since then PPdd has started a nobability article, so now my statement is false and, I think, no longer notable. We might want to say that a statement is not notable if it is false, or, the equivalent, a notable statement is not false. Would we be correct in thinking that where a statement X is judged to be notable there is a tacit judgement that X is not false?--Logicalgregory (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your decree, as it makes things more easy to resolve. For example, since "this sentence is false" is notable and even famous, it must be "not false", by application of our consensus degree "a notable statement is not false". But is not being false the same as true? Another decree on notability may help with that question. :) PPdd (talk)
 * Nice one PPdd. But if we try to list all the paradoxes of notability will we end up with article creep?--Logicalgregory (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Notability Paradox"
The "Paradox of Notablity" - If notability is being worthy of notice, and if someting is not worthy of notice, but it cannot help but be noticed, is it notable or not notable? PPdd (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is not a paradox but the statement "X is not notable" must all ways be false. If you state "X is not notable" then you have noticed X therefore X is notable.--Logicalgregory (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would write LOL, but since I actually read your remark and chuckled out loud, it seems inadequate. Seriously (I just wrote the seriousness article, so thought I might as well name drop it here), I added to the new talk page questions about what it is to notice something, and what "worthy" means in this context. And resolved paradoxes can always be unresolved. There is also the matter of notable being of some distinction (individuation), as if distinction were not all or nothing, but I'm overlapping myself. As Mark Twain might say, the curious matter of distinction is very "singular" indeed. PPdd (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS re LOL - I just started an article on ridiculousness, and read Hobbes on laughter for it, as I needed to "confer notability" with some sort of transitivity from Hobbes, as the article was about to be deleted as WP:NN. I rate the best philosophy as being when no one knows if it is a joke or not, and you keep going anyway. My definition of a good joke is when you are standing in front of a large audience and tell the joke, then the logician in the front row rolls their eyes and slaps their forehead and says "that's the worst joke I ever heard", but the rest of the audience is still performing the calculation. Freud's student's student, Piero Ferrucci, who is also the head of the Huxley Family by descent (I'm "conferring notability", and T. H. Huxley's "ascent of man" from apelike ancestors should really be "decent", as humans "descended" from anscstors, not "ascended"... except for maybe Aldous Huxley)... Piero just wrote a book titled "Beauty" with an interview of me in it, where he asked me what perception of mathematical beauty felt like, and I said that the "QED moment" felt the same as the feeling at the instant when one gets the punchline of a joke. The upshot is that I still have to think aobut your response to the paradox, and I also put a section on transitivity in the Notability (philosophy) talk page. PPdd (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think notable does not only mean worthy of being noticed, it also means capable of provoking notice, regardless of normative considerations such as worth. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a propensity or disposition to provoke notice. That is true, but I doubt it will go over big with Wiki deletionists. PPdd (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looie brings up an important point. We could say that there are two definitions of notability. Def A connotes values such as worthiness. Def B has no value connotation and means nothing more than capable of provoking notice. Under Def B establishing notability is unproblematic; if a statement has already provoked notice then it is ipso facto notable. The problem is that if a statement X qualifies as notable under Def B then people (mistakenly) apply the connotation from Def A.


 * Let me give an example: Blair said "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" this was notable under Def B, because it provoked notice. But I want it argue that it was not notable under Def A, because it was false and there was no evidence that it was true (therefore, it was not worthy of being noticed). In the event, because the statement provoked notice many people believed (falsely) that it was worthy of notice. The reasoning goes "It is notable because Blair said it" (Def B), "if its notable it must be worthy" (Def A).--Logicalgregory (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your "two different definitions", but I don't like your example, since a prime minister saying something false that leads to war is worthy of notice, no matter what they say. Perhaps a better example is cold fusion, which is not worthy of notice, so it is not A-notible, but it got noticed, so it is B-notbale. Another example is Paris Hilton, who has no A-notability, but right now at t=2011, still has lots of B-notability, but it likely wont last for large D because of lack of A-notability (cf Zsa Zsa Gabor).
 * Your "two different definitions" bifurcation is relevant to Wikipedia, and I am surprised it was not put forth at talk:WPNOTE before. WP:NOTE does not acknowledge A-notability at all, but it does acknowledge B-notabiity, and all inclusionist-deletionist arguments are about the degree of B-notability, or about choice of t in B-notabilityt, where t is either the point in time of notice, or the duration of notice (the latter of which also relates to degree). PPdd (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note re B-notabilityt - The t is in Wikipedia's subscripts is very small. PPdd (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Def1 C-notability = capacity to be noticed.
 * Def2 W-notability = worthiness of being noticed.
 * Def3 A-notabilitytD = amount actually noticed at t for duration D.
 * Further defs can be proposed using considerations of objective vs. relative, and various kinds of relative.


 * OED: "Noteworthiness, distinction, prominence; an instance of this." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries and thesauruses are a very good way to start an article when no other RS is immediatly at hand, and often lead to finding other RSs. PPdd (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Logicalgregory, I was falling asleep when I wrote about the paradox. When I woke up I realized the paradox is just the old every whole positive number is ineteresting paradox. PPdd (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Alleged consensus (renamed)
I don't know where to bring this up, but my words and actions have been the subject of misrepresentation by Machine Elf.


 * Pfhorrest and Logicalgregory, do you both know that according to Walkinxyz you agree the lead of appeal to nature must say "cogency and/or validity"

If you read the section he quoted below that, it is clear that I said no such thing. What I said was that they agreed with me on the question of logical priority of meaning to validity in an ordinary language argument, phrased as follows:


 * Does the establishment of validity in a particular argument logically entail that the meaning of its premises are already more or less clear? And therefore, does the validity not (partially) depend on the meaning of the statements?

To which Pfhorrest replied:


 * I think a lot of it depends on the type of argument you're talking about. Formally, you can never validly infer directly from some P directly to some Q... without first showing that P breaks down into some other combination of propositions which together entail the propositions which likewise compose Q […] In that sense, yes, the meaning of the propositions matters to the argument's validity, inasmuch as the meaning tacitly functions as a premise in the argument.

(my emphasis)

Machine Elf also states, incorrectly, that:

Walkinxyz has 1. "identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature"; 2. that #1 is “a determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity in the lead section of [that] article” (whatever that means); and 3.that Walkinxyz is not even responsible for so much as a “"reversion"”, much less a slow edit war, because 4. Walkinxyz's actions are “a reflection of the consensus” and “a consequent addition of relevant information” To me, those statements all appear to be mistaken and/or delusional. So Pfhorrest, Logicalgregory, and Philogo, if you wouldn't mind please sharing your intentions, I'd very much appreciate it.

1. My words were taken out of context. I most emphatically did not say that I had "identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature". What I said was:


 * I have identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature [i.e. in a given appeal to nature], as a determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity in the lead section of this article.

"In the lead section of this article" refers to the location of my "identifying" (pointing out) that "the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature" is "a determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity.

I would like to think that this isn't a deliberate mischaracterization, but it is certainly an unfair and grossly inaccurate distortion of what I claimed.

2. See above for the full context of my statement. Again, a mischaracterization.

3. Let me be clear – every time that Machine Elf reverted an edit about "and/or validity" he did it on grounds that I responded to by changing the wording of the article in an original way. I have not been "edit warring" but responding to criticism. EVERY TIME.

The LAST time, he said explicitly that I should not insert that wording again unless I "source it or forget it".

And I did source it in response, here.

The source that I quoted was a quote about the relationship of everyday understanding to "validity," as follows:

"Everyday understanding makes possible a kind of understanding that is based on claims to validity and thus furnishes the only real alternative to exerting influence on each other in more or less coercive ways. The validity claims that we raise in conversation–that is, when we say something with conviction–transcend this specific conversational context… Every agreement, whether produced for the first time or reaffirmed, is based on (controvertible) grounds or reasons. Grounds have a special property: they force us into yes or no positions. Thus, built into the structure of action oriented toward reaching understanding is an element of unconditionality. And it is this unconditional element that makes the validity (Gültigkeit) that we claim for our views different from the mere de facto acceptance (Geltung) of habitual practices. From the perspective of first persons, what we consider justified is not a function of custom but a question of justification or grounding."

(Jürgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, 19-20.)

4. I think that what I said was an accurate reflection of the opinions of Pfhorrest and Logicalgregory, but I will let them clarify their own "intentions" in what they said, if they wish.


 * One more thing, unless it would be inappropriate, I'm going to forward Walkinxyz's latest talk page post to the conflict of interest noticeboard for discussion. Although I find Walkinxyz's contributions to be somewhat concerning at first blush, I'm not personally inclined to examine them thoroughly, and it's not my area of philosophical interest.

You go from undue weight to conflict of interest… why? Because I cite things that were written by a former teacher of mine, whose ideas I'm familiar with, having read his own work, his research, the sources he consistently quotes in his commentaries, the primary sources, etc.? Having spent almost ten years studying this stuff?

Because I understand something that isn't your area of philosophical interest, which you're not inclined to examine thoroughly?

If my teacher made a scientific discovery in the area of stem cells, and I decided to work on the Wikipedia stem cell article because his name wasn't there, and furthermore I had access to sources that acknowledged his contributions (or his own refereed/reviewed articles), and their significance, would that prejudice my contributions as a conflict of interest?

I gain nothing financially through my work, this is a volunteer effort. He hasn't asked me to do it, I'm not under his supervision, and I don't think it's a conflict of interest or undue weight, given that I've included other sources and worked on the rest of the article as well, which in no way refers to his stuff.

Come off it, please.

Walkinxyz (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

“”
 * Stop editing out the parts that embarrass you! You do the same on the talk page:
 * 20:51, 25 February 2011 Machine Elf 1735.
 * Don't play games, it's easy enough to check a diff. But you're not playing games are you? You're accusing me of abusing you.
 * Those allegations end right now (and keep that crap out of the edit summaries).
 * Here's what you posted to the talk page after revert #3. I've highlighted the part you left out:
 * 23:56, 22 February 2011

“After an edifying discussion at WikiProject Philosophy, I have identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature, as a determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity in the lead section of this article. Please note, that this is not an "edit war" or a "reversion", and a consequent addition of relevant information. Walkinxyz (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)”


 * You even deny "reversion"... precious much?


 * When Philogo says “I think a lot of it depends on the type of argument you're talking about.” what I hear is that it's not even clear what you're talking about. I know you have some exotic gnosis about "arguments" ... so I'll cut to the chase: somehow, the entire paragraph, boils down to the exact same WP:OR that I've been challenging all along: "and/or validity". What an incredible coincidence.
 * WP:V the policy is not optional, regardless of what you thought you wheedled out of someone.
 * You don't get to make the stuff up. You have to find it in a source. Here's the only one we got, and it's about as broke as broken down gets: "N is natural, therefore N is good or right."

“”
 * Walkinxyz also denies, incorrectly,

“”
 * What are you even saying it means? You most emphatically did say that, in those exact words. And the rest is, what? trying to weasel out of your reverts?

“”
 * That makes me sick. You got some nerve.

“”
 * Pathetic, save yourself some typing and just post diffs:

“”
 * Denial... Telling stories and playing word games must be fun but please spare me or produce a diff and blow as hard as you like.
 * When you say "in an original way" is that how you're describing your WP:OR? Because I usually describe your WP:OR as WP:OR. I know you used to think if you change something else, you could use it an excuse to revert "and/or validity". But that never really worked like you thought it should, did it? FYI, it more overtly disclosed that you just make it up as you go along. I removed "and/or validity" every single time, because you put it back every single time.
 * You are edit warring. On account of those 3 ridiculous words you are edit warring. And you've burned through an obscene amount of my time. There is a long long thread on the talk page were I've given you reason after reason. Nothing even dampened your conviction that you are 100% right on target.
 * Then after all that, you sneak over here and post about having an edit dispute with me. No announcement on the article's talk page so people would know they can join in. You're first post was: “After an edifying discussion...” with your phony "consensus"... No doubt if either user explicitly declined, they could expect an argument from you.

“”


 * Not the first time I've said it... just not in so many words.
 * Bravo for finally trying to cite a source before revert #4. Keep trying. Maybe pick a source that has something like a definition or introduction to appeal to nature... Does that seem like an abusive demand to you?
 * You can't just reach for your Habermas. It's unrelated, but you seem to think Gültigkeit merely appearing, and because it's translated into English as "validity"... it's "an excellence source".


 * But I'm sure you read all that on the talk page... and firmly believe you're 100% right nonetheless. And since you can't let go of those 3 words, it will never be easy, because apparently the source you'll need is pretty much going to have to say "cogency and/or validity" won't it?
 * Revert #4 08:32, 24 February 2011 (Undid revision 415646678 by Machine Elf 1735 (talk) I did explain this in the notes when I revised the article. I am restoring, with a clear source as to what is meant here.)
 * Revert #3 23:43, 22 February 2011 (Please see discussion on WIkiProject:Philosophy for clarification of meaning's relationship to validity in non-formalized arguments)
 * I've never once asked you for clarification... I know validity isn't defined for non-formalized arguments.
 * Revert #2 11:40, 19 February 2011 (Removed "content" from lead – hoping this is the end of it. If an understanding of nature isn't involved in an appeal to nature's validity, nothing is. This isn't OR, it's what the article is about.)
 * Serious lack of clue about OR but I don't see "original way" ?
 * Revert #1 07:58, 17 February 2011 (OK, this is actually better. The content needn't be normative or ethical, it could be anything (e.g. epistemological, ontological))

“”
 * Who cares? Maybe we should devote some quality time to your delusions of consensus? I've already addressed how selectively you minded your Ps & Qs on the talk page:
 * 20:51, 25 February 2011 Machine Elf 1735

“”
 * Obviously, I didn't say you did. I don't pretend to know what motivates you, maybe it's just a competency issue.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Walkinxyz wrote
 * every time that Machine Elf reverted an edit about "and/or validity" he did it on grounds that I responded to by changing the wording of the article in an original way.

If you think this constitutes OR, you're illiterate. Original wording and original research are obviously not the same, and Wikipedia articles most certainly can and must contain original wording. I used an ordinary language definition of validity, backed up by a source that was authoritative in explaining the relationship of the concepts (that of an everyday understanding to validity) that were discussed in the lead. Linsabreeny agrees with me on the article talk page itself, so you're the only one out. You were reading the discussion here, and responding at points that were convenient to you, and you just assumed that you were right. But you never challenged what Pfhorrest or Logicalgregory said here, and you never bothered to dignify me with a reply that wasn't full of accusations of OR, violating verifiability standards, etc. etc. It is you who have been making this war, and refusing to engage with the substance of the discussion. You've only referred me to Wikipedia articles that are unsourced (such as argument), which I think based on the discussion on this page don't even contradict my edits, and then you complain when I revise that article (argument) with reliable sources and a "novel" (frightening!) "gnosis" (spooky!) of argument that is based on the work of one of the most influential continental AND one of the most influential American pragmatist philosophers of the 20th century.

You are behaving the way that an ignorant bully behaves. If you can't get your way, you kick sand in the face of whoever is arguing with you, refusing to grant your "consensus", even when your specific concerns are addressed. So it's obvious what you get out of WIkipedia… you want to win something.

I can't say that I'm the same way. That isn't what "motivates" me.

As for the rest, these have indeed been rather shameful meanderings, and I'm not inclined to rehash what anyone can read, if they care to descend to the depths which you've brought the discussion.

Walkinxyz (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haved mentioned this conflict on the ANI noticeboard, where my case with Machine Elf is to be reviewed. I do not think you need to add anything, i just need to let you know. Not sure you have a 'watch' on your talk page so i post here. Regards. Lisnabreeny (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

“”
 * Illiterate? Nice. 4 diffs for the grounds on which I reverted your reverts.
 * “Original wording”... so you have a source but what? You won't provide it? Same result then. You did remove words, and that did make it more vague, it did not make it non-WP:OR.
 * Here's your “original writing” from WP:Articles for deletion/Appeal to nature
 * 20:49, 10 February 2011 (My input).
 * “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.”


 * I think Lisnabreeny is making an important point with this suggestion, but I don't think his proposed revision accomplishes the required task. What is needed is some explication of the various meanings of "nature", 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 it 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 the article, 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:
 * Walkinxyz (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Walkinxyz (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Walkinxyz (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

“”
 * Oh! Why didn't you say so? He'll write another screed if I don't.

“”
 * Why would I dignify etc. etc. you? (A genuine question). Look through your edit history at our 2 protracted pointless arguments, “incoherent”, “ignorant bully”, “absolutely impenetrable”, “not NPOV”, “illiterate”... and you tell me?
 * Why would I challenge Pfhorrest or Logicalgregory? Hypothetically, say I grant that, and noncontradiction; now you grant Template:Citation effectively.
 * You make noise like what you say is authoritative on account of your gravitas. All I'm asking is a source. It's standard practice here on WP. Is that the way an “ignorant bully” behaves? Do fine upstanding gentlemen like you and your associate eclipse my “shameful meanderings”. If you can't cite the source, you could just drop it. Don't argue ad hominem ad nauseum.

“”
 * You! he bloviates you're to blame!!
 * I didn't have to show you anything, WP:BURDEN.

“”
 * Apparently, no one on Earth says.

“”
 * But what do you do for an encore?

“”
 * Son, bite me. game over.

The logical priority of meaning to validity
I am having a dispute with Machine Elf over on the Appeal to nature page. The lead states:

"An appeal to nature is a type of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a source of intelligibility for its claims, and which relies on that understanding for its cogency."

I would like to say that "An appeal to nature is a type of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a source of intelligibility for its claims, and which relies on that understanding for its cogency and/or validity…" but Machine Elf disagrees.

Here is my reasoning:


 * To clarify, I am referring to validity understood as truth claims (or truth-candidacy), and I am saying that the intelligibility of such claims, and therefore also their formal validity, is contingent on our understanding of the particular premises entailed by those claims (although not their particular truth values).


 * Let's say that a given understanding of nature includes the premises that (1) all things in nature ought to be respected, and (2) that it is disrespectful to spill large amounts of oil into the oceans. And I argue that we should not spill large amounts of oil into the oceans, because they are a part of nature and it would be disrespectful to do so.


 * First of all, is this argument formally valid? And if so, does no part of the understanding of nature bear on the validity of the argument?


 * We can put it another way. A given understanding of nature includes the premises that (1) all things in nature ought to be respected, and (2) it would be disrespectful to spill large amounts of oil into the oceans, which are a part of nature. But instead of the above, I argue that we should therefore spill whatever we want to into the oceans. Is this argument formally valid, and if so, does that validity have anything to do with the premises?


 * To make sense of the logical form or structure of the argument, you need to know what is entailed by "respecting" something, and that respecting something is different from doing whatever you want. Therefore, an understanding of what we're talking about is a necessary part of establishing validity. Am I wrong?

Can someone please help us out? Thanks. Walkinxyz (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * “intelligibility of such claims, and therefore also their formal validity”. I am not sure that formal validity is dependent on intelligibility. It would seem at first sight that “not (p and (not p))” is formally valid even if p is unintelligible. Of course, if p is unintelligible the argument is useless, but some would still want to call it valid. You could argue that p has to be a truth bearer, and if it is a truth bearer it must be a statement, and if it is a statement it must be meaningful (intelligible?). That is, that unintelligible sentences have no truth value and, therefore, no place in logic. This may be correct but its a much longer argument. It would go deep into the theory of meaning. Personally, I would not go there, instead I would limit my universe of discourse to meaningful statements viz. any argument that is valid and meaningful... blah, blah, blah.

--Logicalgregory (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "That is, that unintelligible sentences have no truth value and, therefore, no place in logic. This may be correct but its a much longer argument."


 * Yes, it is correct, unless you are talking about the specific logic of computer languages or mathematics, in which case meaning can be arbitrary is irrelevant. But in philosophical arguments, such as an appeal to nature, the statements have to be more or less meaningful, more or less understandable to make sense of their form. Even 'p' has to be intelligible, in as much as it is understood as an arbitrary indeterminate placeholder for a statement, and different from 'q'. (And even in mathematics, it is understood to be a "variable," i.e. something arbitrary indeterminate as opposed to something with a determinate value.) Mathematics is also dependent on language, as the concept of a symbolic "language" is dependent on our everyday understanding of language, even though they are not identical. While purely "formal" validity may be theoretically, trivially, independent from the meaning of a statement, in practice it is in a logically secondary position to meaning. You don't have to go "deep into the theory of meaning", you just have to think about things in practice, and not just in theory. Walkinxyz (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So in order to establish that (p and (not p)) is invalid we first have to understand the meaning of p? If validity is always secondary to meaning we can not say that something is meaningless by virtue of its logical form alone. --Logicalgregory (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We have to understand the meaning of "p" at minimum in its context of an argument, although "p" may not necessarily have a determinate meaning in the formal criteria for an argument. However, as Philogo suggests below, any particular case of validity will necessarily depend on "p" being replaced by some truth-bearer or truth candidate, and therefore its meaning will be part of the validity-testing. Walkinxyz (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So as not to confuse the issue, (and because it should removed too IMO, but one thing at a time), I've removed the trailing sentence from "my" version: “To appeal to nature in an argument is to argue from a premise or premises implied by the concept of nature being invoked in that argument.”
 * I think "cogency" works better by itself. Including "and/or validity" obscures its meaning and that of the statement as a whole.
 * It's different from Moore's naturalistic fallacy. In the context of informal logic, (as either a rule of thumb, or as a fallacy), we have only one source that gives a generic form for the argument:




 * Apart from that, it's a concept in philosophy going back to ancient Greece where, according to Julia Annas (1995) the ‘“ancient” appeal to nature’ was an appeal to human nature. According to Britannica, the sophists used an ‘appeal to nature’ to argue toward contrary sides (for different clients); that this was a ‘major’ factor leading to their persecution; and that, although the appeal was pre-Socratic in origin, much of the ethical work of Plato and Aristotle was just "following up" on that which the sophists originated.
 * I'm not sure if the Modern developments section is applicable to the appeal per se, as opposed to nature in general, but I wonder if the article shouldn't present the Rational argument section prior to it at any rate? Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Including "and/or validity" obscures its meaning and that of the statement as a whole.


 * Are you suggesting that the question of validity has no place in an assessment of appeals to nature? I think their logical form is important, and that's why I want to include it. But my dictionary tells me that "cogent" also means "logical", and therefore includes some logical concepts such as validity. It is important to me that this not be dropped for the wrong reasons, that's all.


 *  I'm not sure if the Modern developments section is applicable to the appeal per se,


 * It is applicable to arguments such as those the Greeks made (immediately previous to this section), which appeal to nature, human or otherwise, as a source of norms of conduct. Walkinxyz (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see whereas validity is especially pertinent, no. What could be addressed is that appeal to nature is sometimes listed among the plethora of fallacies based on informal notions, (i.e. valid but naughty) and these are often presented as if there's no question about it, if it walks like a duck... However, because a source actually explains that for certain topics, an appeal to nature can be taken as a rule of thumb, rather than a fallacy, there's probably no need for a word of caution about so-called logical fallacies in general.
 * There's nothing peculiar to an appeal to nature which makes validity questionable, so the question shouldn't be implied. And as the dictionary says, it's entirely unclear how it could be both cogent and invalid.
 * I know you're doing some extensive work on Nikolas Kompridis and supporting articles. It just seems that citing his paper three times when it doesn't even contain the term "appeal to nature" is probably undue weight—especially when combined with the inflexibility about where exactly that section should go.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (p and (not p)) would be said to be a logical valid argument form, and if p is replaced by a truthbearer then we have a valid argument. Whatever the truthbearers may be, if something is not meaningful then it is not a truthbearer.  Adding "intelligible" as a further requirement for a truthbearer only makes a difference if we can say how "intelligible" differs from "meaningful".  If they are synonymous then the additional requirement is of null effect.  If they are not synonymous we can then decide whether "intelligible" should be an additional requirement for a truthbearer. I believe the writings on the Rosetta stone or something were "unintelligible" until somebody figured out the translation.  I would say as an English speaker that the texts were not meaningless until they were translated. If they were meaningful (but as yet unintelligible) the declarative sentences on that stone were nevertheless truthbearers prior to translation.  Therefore "intelligible" meaning "in known/understood language/code" would not be a requirement for a truthbearer. Perhaps there are other senses of intelligible we might consider, but hitherto I have never heard of the requirement for a truthbearer (proposition/statement/meaningful declarative sentence etc) being meaningful AND intelligible...&mdash; Philogos (talk)  02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Philogo didn't you mean to write (not (p and (not p)) or write (p or (not p)) ??--Logicalgregory (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A truth-bearer (or truth "candidate") may not have to be intelligible in itself, but in order to establish its validity, we will need to make sense of it somehow. The question was not, "is meaning the same as intelligibility?" but rather, "isn't meaning logically prior to validity"?
 * truth-bearers are not necessarily valid/invalid, Eg "It is raining". Just those which are logal truths or negations of same. To answer whether "X is logically prior to Y" we must agree what we mean by "logically prior"&mdash; Philogos (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, validity is a property of inferences, not of single propositions. Truth, meaningfulness, rationality, perhaps "cogency", and the like, can apply to propositions. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What I meant was "A truth-bearer (or truth "candidate") may not have to be intelligible in itself, but in order to establish an argument's validity, we will need to make sense of it [the truth candidate] somehow.


 *  To answer whether "X is logically prior to Y" we must agree what we mean by "logically prior"


 * To put my question another way: Does the establishment of validity in a particular argument logically entail that the meaning of its premises are already more or less clear? And therefore, does the validity not (partially) depend on the meaning of the statements?


 * The correctness of this seems frightfully obvious to me, and if people think I'm wrong, then I've stepped into a very Kafka-esque parallel universe where down is the new up. Walkinxyz (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of it depends on the type of argument you're talking about. Formally, you can never validly infer directly from some P directly to some Q... without first showing that P breaks down into some other combination of propositions which together entail the propositions which likewise compose Q. For a trivial classic example, "Bob is a bachelor. Therefore, Bob is unmarried." If you formalize that as "P. Therefore, Q." then you have no formal grounds on which to make the inference. But if you break "bachelor" down to something like "unmarried but marriageable man", then P breaks down into something like "Q, R, and S", those being "Bob is unmarried", "Bob is marriageable", and "Bob is a man". From the conjunction of those it's trivial to prove Q, "Bob is unmarried". But without first proving (or taking as a premise) that "P iff (Q and R and S)", the inference from P straight to Q is formally invalid.
 * In that sense, yes, the meaning of the propositions matters to the argument's validity, inasmuch as the meaning tacitly functions as a premise in the argument. But with more clearly formalized arguments, such as "P. P xor Q. Therefore not Q." the meaning of P and Q is completely irrelevant to the argument's validity: you know that argument is valid without knowing or caring what P or Q mean. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Pfhorrest. That is a very helpful explication. In this context, we are talking about the appeal to nature as a type of argument in ordinary language and philosophy. Not some "clearly formalized" argument. My faith in the direction of up and down has been restored. Walkinxyz (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? It seemed to me an appeal to nature argument is just an argument with the missing premiss "Whatever is natural is good" (or equivalent). Nothing particularly philosophical or special, just another type of  missing premiss argument.  &mdash; Philogos (talk)  02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the case of an invalid logical form there is no need to replace variables with meaningful truth-bearers. This is because whatever statements and truth values we use in the replacement we will still have an invalid argument. Put whatever you like in your truth tables - it will make no difference. Therefore, an argument can be made to say that invalidity is logically prior to meaning. However, to go back to the beginning of this discussion, I think it is clear that an appeal to nature is not (necessarily?? normally??) an invalid logical form. When Lisabreeny brought this issue to WP Philosophy, the article on the appeal to nature appeared to be saying that an appeal to nature is an example of invalid logical form, which is why I thought something needed to be done about it.--Logicalgregory (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Philogos, I think it is normally a missing premise. Therefore, it is neither valid nor invalid but contingent on the truth of the missing premise. In this case, I find it hard to understand how it can be classed as a fallacy.--Logicalgregory (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it unfair (to the concept of nature and those who consider it) to assume a missing premise. Why can 'x is natural' (in context) not be broken down like 'bob is a bachelor'? eg. exploring the biology of a deep cave, bob is unnatural therefore bob is a risk to the stability of the caves biology. Break down what unnatural means in the context of the cave, breakdown what is a risk to the cave's biology... Lisnabreeny (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But "Bob is a bachelor. Therefore, Bob is unmarried" also contains a hidden premise namely "all bachelors are unmarried"--Logicalgregory (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Appeals to nature contain only one necessary "hidden" premise: "You ought to consider the meaning and significance of nature in considering the cogency and validity of this argument". It doesn't mean that nature=good. You can appeal to nature in deciding to stay at home – away from nature – because human beings ought to remain separate from nature, if that is your understanding of nature (i.e. that humans are separate). There are "cascading" premises "hidden" in all arguments that have any meaning, because there is a theoretically limitless web of meaning or "aboutness" attached to (implied by) every "premise." Walkinxyz (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note the difference: 'Hidden' means it should be there to be found (with a hint of deliberate obfuscation), 'missing' means it does not seem to be present (with the suggestion that we have looked).
 * I wrote more, but am putting it under the 'appeal to nature' heading for neatness. Lisnabreeny (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A so-called "missing premiss" of an argument is simply the premis which, if supplied, would make the argument valid. Eg For argument "Bob is a communist/Bob is evil" missing premiss is "All communists are evil"; "Bob is a bachelor/Bob is unmarried": missing premiss "All bachelors are unmarried".  Thus and similarly "Greed is natural/Greed is good": missing premiss "Whatever is natural is good" .  Re "breaking down" the term natural: if "natural" means "not made by man and is good" (cf "bachelor" means "male and unmarried").  This would suggest the missing premiss for "Greed is natural/Greed is good" is "Whatever is natural is not made by man and is good".  "Greed is natural/Greed is good" is  still then an argument with a missing premiss. And as Logicalgregory says above: it is neither valid nor invalid but contingent on the truth of the missing premise. In this case, I find it hard to understand how it can be classed as a fallacy.  If on the other hand it IS a fallacy, then so is every other argument with a missing premiss. &mdash; Philogos (talk)  22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'Bob is a bachelor' premiss interests me because being unmarried seems part of the normal definition of being a bachelor, not something extra or optional, so the deliberation seems almost ~linguistic. In a similar way to bob is a bachelor entailing unmarriedness, in the context of safety to an isolated ecosystem, being natural (to it) entails familiarity/integration/stability with it, with no extraneous premiss required.
 * It occurs to me that in the past, there was more mystery/divinity involved in what was 'good' about different aspects/contexts of nature, so more need for the leap of faith, intuitive acceptance, extra premiss -because however it worked, it worked (to come into being and/or survive) Now we have the concept of 'natural selection' which goes some way to revealing/formulating how nature has worked. Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, i do try to follow and look forward to understanding the technical, but what i read is ever shifting summaries that appeals to nature lack something. Something unique enough to be cautioned against and preferably avoided.
 * To ignore nature, is to dance off a cliff, to make detergent soup for lunch, to shoot every Dodo, to set off into the desert with nothing to drink. What is more complete, more connected to reality, than nature? Why is it then, assumed so often, that to argue from nature is characterised by its lack of completeness? Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of "Bob is a communist/Bob is evil" the missing premise is “All communists are evil"; “so that the corresponding argument is "Bob is a communist, All communists are evil /Bob is evil". That is a valid argument. It is SOUND if in addition, both premises are true. For each premise, if we assert it is true, we could claim that it is either (a) contingently true, or (b) necessarily true. We could argue that "All communists are evil" by saying that it is analytically true, on the grounds that "communist" is synonymous with "evil and person" (just as we might say that "bachelor" is synonymous with "unmarried male"). Alternatively we could say that “All communists are evil" is a contingent truth; it just so happens that they are all evil. To say of any word X that is synonymous with Y it is make a lexical statement, a statement about how the words are used. In point of dispute consult a dictionary. Dictionaries with confirm "bachelor" is synonymous with "unmarried male" but not “communist" is synonymous with "evil and person" (accept perhaps in certain dialects spoken perhaps by right wing radio chat show hosts?). Turning to "Greed is natural/Greed is good": missing premise "Whatever is natural is good" full argument "Greed is natural, Whatever is natural is good /Greed is good" regarding the second premise "Whatever is natural is good" we could assert it as either contingently or necessarily true, and if the latter on the grounds that "natural" means “not made by man and is good", but do dictionaries support this assertion about the use of the word "natural"? I think not. If we assert that it, "Whatever is natural is good" is a contingent truth, and then one would have to show the research that has shown it to be so. A single instance of something being "not made by man" but not good, we refute the generalisation. Now I can think of a whole lot of people and things which are not man-made and which IMHO are not good, in fat a lot of them are quite the opposite. Looking at the stars above, I do not think of any of them as being good and yet none pf them are man made. Thinking of people, none of whom are man made, some of them IMHO are not good and some quite the opposite. Giving Hitler a rest for once, what about Pinochet? We only have to have ONE example of something not made and yet not good to refute the generalisation "Whatever is natural is good". I am sure everybody can think of a person or natural object or substance that they would not consider good, so everybody would reject the generalisation "Whatever is natural is good". I recommend a reading of Plato's Euthyphro, which considers inter alia the assertion "Piety is that which is dear to the gods" (6e) and the resultant question "whether the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious or pious because it is beloved by the gods". (10a) We can substitute the terms good and natural to obtain the assertion "Goodness is that which is natural" and the resultant question "whether the natural is good because it is natural or whether natural is good because it is good"&mdash; Philogos (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Be careful with dictionaries. Etymology is empirical. If we agree with Hume, everything empirical is contingent. Therefore, if the Oxford Dictionary says “All bachelors are unmarried men” this only implies that there is evidence that it is contingently true that “all bachelors are unmarried men is logically true”. My position is that all logically truths are stipulative or derived from stipulations. For example, in this essay I shall take the word “bachelor” to mean “unmarried man”. --Logicalgregory (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Philogo, I think you meant to say "whether something is good because it is natural, or natural because it is good". --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Philogos, one can't suggest "Whatever is natural is good" as a missing premise if she thinks it fails, much less entertain it's necessarily true. Rather, taking it as a rule of thumb, where applicable, seems more reasonable. (Adolf Hitler need not apply).
 * The author at fallacyfile.org, the source for, admits they couldn't be bothered to figure out Moore's naturalistic fallacy, and IMO, the lax standard is evident because that's just denying the antecedent of and if the two were taken together as a logical equivalence, it would clearly be the target Moore's attack. But it's all left unexplored... so as a source for the WP article, it's a mixed bag: the suggested forms are iffy at best, but the suggested rule of thumb is quite good.
 * I think people have forgotten the merits that distinguish an appeal to nature from an appeal to custom/religion/authority/etc:
 * “‘By contrast, the natural processes of the world happen either always or for the most part’ (Physics ii.8. 198b34–35) and this means that they are susceptible of genuine final cause explanations. But what does it mean to say that they happen either always or for the most part? Clearly there is no requirement that they be continuous (hot weather happens in the summer for the most part; but weather is not for the most part hot and summery…). The frequencies are relative frequencies: most men have beards (Posterior Analytics ii.12. 96a8–11), but most things are not bearded men. Thus the claim that natural occurrences happen always or for the most part should be glossed something as follows:
 * (N) if q is natural, then given p, always or for the most part q, where p isolates the relevant background domain in which we are interested (given that it is summer, hot, dry weather is to be expected). I formulate N in terms of propositional variables for generality's sake, in order to encompass lucky events, such as the meeting at the market-place; but in general Aristotle is concerned with the holding of properties by individuals, and hence:
 * (N*) if it is natural for Fs to be Gs, then Fs are always, or for the most part, Gs may be closer to Aristotle's general position here. N* is expressed in a form appropriate to syllogistic inference (although the applicability of syllogistic to the logic of ‘for the most part’ is strictly limited). These dyadic interpretations of ‘always or for the most part’ have the further advantage of stressing the causal nature of the connections involved. The whole point of the distinctions is precisely that something cannot be a matter of chance if it occurs regularly: and here of course ‘regularly’ does not mean ‘all or most of the time’ in any absolute sense. On the contrary, the occurrences of the conjunctions may be, in terms of absolute frequency, very rare indeed. What matters is that they instantiate regular conjunctions of events (and hence make such events in principle predictable…), which the accidental do not:
 * “that there is no science of the accidental (kata sumbebēkos) is clear: for all science is either of that which is always or of that which is for the most part. For how else could one learn or impart it to another? Things must be determined as either occurring always or for the most part, e.g. that honey-water is for the most part beneficial to fever patients. But one will not be able to state when what occurs contrary to this happens, e.g. ‘at the new moon’—for then it will be the case on the day of the new moon either always or for the most part—but the accidental is the opposite of this.” (Metaphysics vi.2. 1027a20–7)
 * …Aristotle rather suggests that there will always be some merely accidental cases of honey-water not being beneficial: and if they are merely accidental, then they are not themselves capable of formulation in universal or majority form (see Posterior Analytics 1. 30). In fact, the reason why universality fails in the natural world … for Aristotle material facts get in the way of form realizing itself. There will be individual reasons why the form fails to come to fruition (this sapling was blasted by lightning; that one eaten by goats); but these cases are not, Aristotle thinks, in general susceptible of formulation in terms of some further generality (Generation of Animals iv.4. 770b9–17). This is why purely accidental conjunctions resist scientific explanation: there are no general relations of form under which they can be subsumed.” — R. J. Hankinson (1997) Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought, pp.136–9, (pdf pp.113–5).
 * That the natural is good, that it's for the best in some compelling way, can hardly be dismissed.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To Lisna, the reason why "Bob is a bachelor. Therefore Bob is unmarried." is an argument with a missing premise is because if you formalize the argument, which is to say assign arbitrary symbols for each part of it and just look at how those symbols relate to each other and not what they mean, then you can't see why the argument would be valid; you need extra groups of symbols to show the connection between them. We could formalize the argument by giving each proposition in it letter: we let "P" stand for "Bob is a bachelor" and "Q" stand for "Bob is unmarried". Then the logical form of the argument is "P. Therefore Q." Without knowing what P and Q mean (and thus what relation they might have to each other), we have no reason to think that that argument is valid. That's the whole point of logic: to arrange sentences in a way where you can see just by how they are arranged that the truth of one has to follow from the truth of some others. That's what logical validity is.


 * In the case of "P. Therefore Q.", what we would need to make that connection would be "P only if Q" (or equivalently "If P, then Q"). A definition of something gives you an "if and only if", so if the definition of "P" includes "Q" then you've got what you need; and in the case of bachelors and unmarried people, it does, so the argument is valid, if we assume the unstated premise about what bachelor means. So the valid argument is really "Bob is a bachelor. (And, I presume you know and so do not need to bother mentioning, all bachelors are by definition unmarried men). Therefore, Bob is unmarried." Or formally "P. (P if and only if Q and R). Therefore Q." The unstated definition of P, which is necessary to make the argument formally valid, is the hidden premise.


 * I haven't really been following the whole appear to nature part of this discussion, but what I gather is people are saying than an appeal to nature of the form "X is natural. Therefore X is good." is no different from "Bob is a bachelor. Therefore Bob is unmarried." The implied connection between naturalness and goodness is not stated, and is necessary for the validity of the argument, and is therefore a missing premise. Some people here seem to be saying that because of this similarity, an appeal to nature cannot be considered a fallacy unless we consider all arguments with missing premises fallacious. If that is in fact being asserted, then I disagree: while such arguments, with their missing premises supplied, may be formally valid, the falsity of the implied missing premise may still make such arguments informally fallacious, and so if the implied premise about naturalness and goodness is false, then appeals to nature are (informally) fallacious too.


 * Consider for example uncontroversial informal fallacies such as appeal to popularity or appeal to authority. These operate along the lines of "X is popular. (And of course all popular things are good.) Therefore X is good." or "Authorities declare that X. (And of course anything an authority says must be right). Therefore X." These are informal fallacies because the "of course" parts which they assume are false: not everything popular is good, not everything an authority says is right. If not all natural things are good, then appeals to nature are informally fallacious, just like appeals to popularity or authority. And I would say that that missing premise (that all natural things are good) is, at the very least, far from uncontroversial, and depends heavily on the (also highly controversial) meaning of "natural". The "Bob" argument instead relies upon appeal only to uncontroversial definition, which is not fallacious at all.


 * All that said, I do think we should have a source if we are to call appeals to nature informal fallacies, but I don't imagine that such would be hard to find. (Google shows several promising results). I also think the lede of the article could use a lot of cleanup; it's not at all clear to me on a first read what it's trying to say. I think modelling it after the informal fallacy articles such as appeal to popularity and appeal to authority, and just removing the adjective "fallacious" if we can't find a source for that, would help a lot. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between showing that a kind of argument might contain 'controversial' hidden premiss, and coining a term for all similar sounding arguments as a "fallacy"? This "fallacy" appears in random personal notes and leaflets on the internet and is never featured in reviewed text. The term "appeal to nature" does feature in reviewed text and papers, it is just that the term "fallacy" never does with it, and the various reasonings of the fallacy never does. Read some of those googled references for appeal to nature fallacy, and tell me how many impress you, and how many are thinnly reasoned obvious opinion pieces.
 * The article could use more editing, but of course i do hope i can make you reconsider your idea that it is about a fallacy. Lisnabreeny (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I read wp:argument to clarify the position on missing and hidden premises:
 * wp:argument states -"Often an argument is invalid because there is a missing premise the supply of which would make it valid. Speakers and writers will often leave out a strictly necessary premise in their reasonings if it is widely accepted and the writer does not wish to state the blindingly obvious. Example: All metals expand when heated, therefore iron will expand when heated. (Missing premise: iron is a metal)."
 * The article does not define hidden premise, but does "hidden assumption", which is interesting if accurate...
 * What I find uncharitable about 'appeal to nature's reputation of fallacy or invalidity, is that the example which i gave of "x is natural to a natural system, x is good for that system" is very similar (in ecological and biological terms at least) to the example "metals expand when heated, iron will expand when heated" The 'missing premise' is natural selection is good for natural systems (and perhaps to connect it -to be natural to a natural system entails having been involved in its natural selection process), and that premise has strong inductive probability known from study of evolution and natural history. This extra premise is "blindingly obvious" to many who understand evolution, somewhat understood by some, but by a few it is simply labeled contentious and ignored in favour of more contentious examples, resulting in the claims that all appeals to nature lack validity. Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Philogo - Thankyou, quite a lot to consider. I read that a generalisation with no acceptions is deductive, and one with exceptions (which most generalisations are -at least potentialy) is inductive. So i do not follow entirely the problem with generalising in the presence of exceptions.
 * As well as 'appeal to nature' being a term that speaks of ancient philosophical search for direction in nature, it is used today in less specialist discussion. "Natural" has many synonyms. I have read philosophy texts indentify and discuss different appeals to nature, i do not recognise yet a common denominator except that the concept of nature features.
 * Whatever the ancient and modern philosophical deliberations about what is good, i expect that stars in some important ways are good, and it would be a detached mind indeed that looks on them unappreciatively :] Lisnabreeny (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggested above that if we allowed one missing premise argument (i.e. appeals to nature e.g. "Greed is natural/Greed is good" or "Organic is natural/organic is good" or "Skinny-dipping is natural/skinning-dipping is good) the status of fallacy then we would have to allow all missing premise arguments the same status, including say "Bananas are tables/bananas are lions" - mp "all tables are lions", RAA. However Pfhorrest calls my bluff apparently saying above that we can say just those missing premise arguments whose premises are false are fallacies. But obviously "all tables are lions" is false but surely "Bananas are tables/bananas are lions" is not a fallacy, its just silly.  Perhaps Pfhorrest means that a mp argument is a fallacy if the mp is both (a) false (b) widely assumed to be true e.g. "Experts agree that food additives are harmless/food additives are harmless" mp: "Experts know the truth" or "God likes to be worshipped/worshipping God is good": mp "whatever God likes is good".  The trouble with that analysis is that whether X is a fallacy or not depends on whether the mp is true or false, and whether it is widely believed.  The fallacy status of an argument would therefore be contingent.  Worse, arguments would become or cease to be fallacious as (a) and might turn out to be true (false)  (b) a mp premise might become/cease to be widely believed.  Various arguments put forward by Isaac Newton made assumptions (had missing premises).  These missing premises were initially not widely believed (since at one time not yet published): at that time therefore not fallacies (b) later widely believed therefore fallacies iff mp were false (c) for may years mp considered to be true therefore arguments not considered to be fallacies (d) later mp found to be false, thanks to Einstein: for a while mp still widely considered to be true but on fact false therefore arguments fallacies (e) at some time the future, maybe, the mps will not be widely considered to be true (schools skip teaching Newtonian Mechanics and sip straight to Einsteinian): at that time the arguments will cease to be fallacies. &mdash; Philogos (talk)  02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re < "x is natural to a natural system, x is good for that system" is very similar (in ecological and biological terms at least) to the example "metals expand when heated, iron will expand when heated" The 'missing premise' is natural selection is good for natural systems. > Perhaps;  but an arguments whose conclusions are X is good for Y are not to be confused with arguments whose conclusions are "X is good".  "Good for X" is a different kettle of fish to "Good."  &mdash; Philogos (talk)  02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are informal fallacies part of Logic or part of Rhetoric? It is difficult to think of anything more formal than logic. So, the idea of an “informal fallacy” (if it is meant to be part of logic) is something I find incoherent. Also, many examples of informal fallacies often seem to be little more than bad style. If the claim that appeal to nature is a fallacy in rhetoric rather than logic most of the discussions above dissipate. --Logicalgregory (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's an article about this very new pedagogical field which seems to use the word "logic" non-rigorously. (But nobody's ever claimed "appeal to nature" is a proper fallacy in real logic).
 * The confusion about what to call the field seems to span: "Critical theory", "Argumentation theory", "Informal logic", "Fallacy theory" and, believe it or not, they seem to think the name "Logic" is up for grabs. Rhetoric would make sense... I anticipate they'll do for "logic" what tabloid–skeptics have done for "science".
 * To paraphrase how one person (not here) rationalized A2N as an "informal fallacy", they figure: “if someone's only excuse is that it's natural, then what they're saying is baseless” but why should "natural" have even less clout than "supernatural"?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Pfhorrest and Logicalgregory, do you both know that according to Walkinxyz you agree the lead of appeal to nature must say "cogency and/or validity" Talk:Appeal to nature 10:49, 24 February: “And Pfhorrest, who gave the only complete answer to my question on WIkiProject Philosophy, also agreed with me in terms of the logical priority of meaning to validity, a conversation which Machine Elf did not bother to comment on” ... “Logicalgregory indeed "advised" me not to go there, but I wasn't seeking advice, I was seeking an opinion. And even he agreed with me” ... “My dictionary (Oxford) says that a fallacy is "a mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument". But in that case, how can there be an informal fallacy if validity and soundness are properties of formal arguments alone? The answer is, they aren't.” Am I to assume that these users also agree validity and soundness are defined for "an informal fallacy" and that Walkinxyz should express that definition with the words "cogent and/or validity"; and insert those words into the lead of appeal to nature regardless of policy (WP:V, WP:OR, etc., not to mention my objections on that talk page and here?)

I went out on limb an assumed no, nobody wants to be dragged into something... So I let Walkinxyz's 22-Feb talk page post slide, even thought it claimed the discussion was over and the following consensus had been reached:
 * 1) Walkinxyz has "identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature";
 * 2) that #1 is “a determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity in the lead section of [that] article” (whatever that means); and
 * 3) that Walkinxyz is not even responsible for so much as a “"reversion"”, much less a slow edit war, because
 * 4) Walkinxyz's actions are “a reflection of the consensus” and “a consequent addition of relevant information”

To me, those statements all appear to be mistaken and/or delusional. So Pfhorrest, Logicalgregory, and Philogo, if you wouldn't mind please sharing your intentions, I'd very much appreciate it.

One more thing, unless it would be inappropriate, I'm going to forward Walkinxyz's latest talk page post to the conflict of interest noticeboard for discussion. Although I find Walkinxyz's contributions to be somewhat concerning at first blush, I'm not personally inclined to examine them thoroughly, and it's not my area of philosophical interest. I would rather limit my comments to the discussions here and to the content of the appeal to nature article. “== Undue weight to Kompridis? ==

I'll open it up, since Machine Elf suggested over at Wikiproject Philosophy that there is undue weight to Kompridis. He noticed that I've worked on Kompridis' biography (a lonely task), and other articles that are relevant to his ideas.

Disclosure: I was a student of Kompridis, who was a student of Jürgen Habermas, and probably know his ideas as intimately as anyone besides himself.

The discussion in the "Modern developments" section cites 3 different sources: Rousseau, Rodney Brooks, and Kompridis. One was written 250 years ago, another is by a prominent roboticist, and the final source is Kompridis' paper, which also discusses the other two sources. This is a short section of the article – 4 short paragraphs with 3 different references.

In addition, it links to two philosophers who are well-documented critics of different understandings of "nature" (which is discussed in the lead): Bruno Latour and Jacques Derrida.

However, neither of these two people have commented on the normativity of nature, to my knowledge, which is appealed to by the Greeks and by many other arguments in this article. Kompridis does comment on this.

Machine Elf claims that Kompridis' article does not use the words "appeal to nature". But it does explicitly deal with an appeal to nature in the portion cited:

"'When we regard ourselves as 'machines whose components are biochemicals,' we not only presume to know what our nature permits us to be, but also that this knowledge permits us to answer the question of what is to become of us…"

Is this not referring to an appeal to nature? I see two premises (1,2) and a conclusion (3) that Kompridis explicitly names, (1) that we see (and refer to) ourselves (human beings) as "machines whose components are biochemicals"; (2) that we therefore presume we know something about the nature of human beings; and therefore (3) that knowledge allows us access to norms of conduct (what we are permitted to say we will become) contained in that understanding of nature.

Two premises (about our nature) and a conclusion based on those premises. A description (and a refutation) of an appeal to nature.

What do others think? Undue weight? – Walkinxyz (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)”

I don't just "claim" that Kompridis' article does not use the words "appeal to nature", his article does not use those words. There's nothing subjective about it. Given Walkinxyz's comments about the content, I think the section should be deleted or substantially revised: Appeal to nature.

Thanks in advance for both comments and advice everybody.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a critical determination for the article because whether "appeal to nature" is a special label or a descriptive term is crucial to its comprehension. A difficulty has been that there are no textbook definitions of it as a special label, and its instances in texts are open to interpretion as a special label (applied to each case where it is used) or a form of the expression "appeal to x" (applicable to any case where it is meaningful).
 * I have been reading about natural kinds to see if they should appear in the article, this Stanford edu article does not use "appeal to nature" but the subject and explaination suggests that "appeals to" nature could feature in various takes on the concept of natural kinds. The article uses the "appeal to" expression, seemingly quite freely - six times:
 * "Putnam's appeal to our linguistic intuitions", "appealing, explicitly or implicitly, to a ‘same kind relation’." , "which of the kinds to which science makes appeal, if any, correspond to real natural kinds" , "the appeal to essences" , "appealing to certain entities, the natural kinds" , "direct appeals to intuition"
 * My own understanding is that with the lack of textbook definition of the label "appeal to nature" and various useage of the "appeal to" expression, and some actual examples of a.t.n in different arguments, that the term is descriptive. I have not been able to resolve a common denomiator for it other than that the concepts of argument and nature feature, and particular examples seem to go back to the beginnings of where the concept of nature was significantly formalised and introduced to ancient philosophy (by socrates according to aristotle iirc) Lisnabreeny (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lisnabreeny, I'm sorry but natural kinds have nothing whatsoever to do with what's going on the article's talk page right now and the discussion here hasn't focused on natural kinds either.
 * Walkinxyz says he has carte blanch based on this discussion. I don't see that here. I'd just like a simple, candid response regarding the extraordinary claims Walkinxyz is making. OK?
 * Be bold. You've made a pretty good case for dropping the source that says it's 1) a rule of thumb and 2) some people say it's a fallacy of relevance. Other than that, it's not an argument, it's a just plain old concept in philosophy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what i have said here, is that it seems to be plain philosophical language (appeal to)(nature) - "A type of argument that depends on an understanding of X as a source of intelligibility for its claims..."
 * There does seem to be at least one particular (appeal to)(nature) involved in discussion on the nature of natural kinds, but besides i quoted that article to illustrate the meaning of the words "appeal to".
 * You are the only one saying "its not an argument - its a concept". There is no source defining it as "a concept". There is one suggesting "the appeal to nature" in classical greece. In the talk pages multiple individual appeals to nature are referenced. The normal language says it is an argument from nature.
 * You are unilateraly dictating what matters in the article, with no support yet in this case and having composed very little of the article yourself. Walkinxyz's explaination of essentialy an argument/appeal in philosophy is not OR. Your extra conceptualisation of the term is so far OR, and this quibbling over "and/or validity" (and the earlier spiking of the intro with a link to stanford.edu/argument#fallacy) is just unilateral pointless edit warring. Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm asking is for you to please use the article discussion page or to start a new topic here. Walkinxyz has made an unbelievable number of claims about what people here have authorized him/her to do per consensus. Aside from that mayhem, if anyone has any comments or concerns, I'd like to be able to address them at this time, if you'd be so kind as to allow me Lisnabreeny?
 * If you'd like to start the "Appeal to X" article please feel free. We've discussed how disruptive it is when you choose to make statements like:
 * “There is no source defining it as "a concept". There is one suggesting "the appeal to nature" in classical greece.”
 * You are perfectly well aware that there are several reliable sources that do a good deal more than "suggest". If you require a dictionary for the word "", please avail yourself of the link to wiktionary.
 * I fail to see how objecting to “cogency and/or validity” is “unilateraly dictating what matters in the article”. However, it's true I can't seem to break the habit of trying to communicate with you; my apologies. As for the final part of your message, if I have to take this to ANI, I'll address it there. Please stop being belligerent; there's no call for it.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "You are perfectly well aware that there are several reliable sources that do a good deal more than "suggest" (it as "a concept")."
 * -No. What would that make me if said i knew of no sources which defined it as a concept, but i actually did? I am not that kind of person. I know of no such sources. We are working with around 4 or 5 references which use the term (aside the various and unsubstantiated and privately published 'fallacy concepts'). Which one/s do you find define a concept of 'appeal to nature' which in any way restricts the standard philosophical meaning of (an appeal to)(nature)?
 * When you do not get any other feedback on your editing conflicts, you cannot simply brush off mine with misplaced wp:directives, and charge me repeatedly and explicitly with lying in my talk and the articles discussion, etc. and then expect to be immune to dispute. If you do not like what i am saying, take it up, stop accusing me of dishonesty and telling me to take it elsewhere. Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's 3 you've discussed on Talk:Appeal to nature:
 * Saunders, "Western Philosophical Schools and Doctrines: Ancient and Medieval Schools: Sophists: Particular Doctrines: Theoretical issues", Encyclopaedia Britannica;
 * Annas The Morality of Happiness;
 * (and presumably the one you want me to read is relevant?) Cooper, Eudaimonism and the Appeal to Nature in the Morality of Happiness: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
 * I asked you nicely Lisnabreeny. Regarding "wp:directives", I insist that you follow policy and guidelines.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You insist i follow the guidlines which you find convienient, and a lot more.
 * None of the references you put above define a concept of "appeal to nature" i do not recall specifically but expect that they all examine multiple appeals to nature (i do know that the third one does). There has been sooo much discussion now on what an appeal to nature is and is not, from way back when you where insisting it was a fallacy of some kind, to lately where it is some mysterious untracable concept, how could we be at the state of saying now, that there is definition of "the concept" somewhere within these refs, without actually being able to quote the defintive section ??
 * There can be no single "concept" (unless it has been hiding really well) - We may find different conceptualisations in antiquity, throughout the ages, in different feilds, even in casual debate, and that's great for the article, but the words of the term themselves have meaning and are so common in philosophy (appeal to) (nature), that there are multiple individuated instances of the phrase a.t.n. in most every ref which contains it. I puzzled over dozens of sources for weeks to learn 'a concept' of appeal to nature, but they are multiple and all just essentially (arguments from) (nature). (And that is what the intro stated so clinicaly.) Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can tell everyone at ANI how I don't make you follow enough rules and/or too many rules; why you ought-not WP:AGF or why I ought to inconvenience myself to police you; why I deserve these WP:NPA here and now.... I confess, I ignore your WP:CIVIL problem way too much, but I'm not your mother.

I don't know what you're saying but hey, it's all good, right?
 * “None of the references you put above define a concept of "appeal to nature" i do not recall specifically but expect that they all examine multiple appeals to nature”

So I agreed with you that the 'fallacy source' is substandard; and then you turn around and insist it is a fallacy; and now you're complaining about how I was "insisting" we use a source when?

And are you just being egregiously uncivil or do you have a diff where I say anything even remotely similar to “some mysterious untracable concept”? I believe the only adjective I've use with that is “philosophical concept”, but go right ahead and produce a diff or apologize for your bull.


 * “how could we be at the state of saying now, that there is definition of "the concept" somewhere within these refs, without actually being able to quote the defintive section”

Funny thing about philosophers who write books, they loves them some definitions. But why are you saying I think there can be only one true definition or “definitive section”? Or that we can't quote one? Like the one sitting on the talk page: Talk:Appeal to nature#Julia Annas - the "ancient" appeal to nature.

We have to use WP:RS, not just “casual debate” for the article so unless your research wasn't as exhaustive as you claimed, who knows what the future may bring? Thanks for the advice.

What's with the (Shatner-esque) (way)(you keep) (typing)(appeal to) (nature)?

So you've found “dozens” of sources about “(arguments from) (nature)”. Which would actually need to go in one of nature articles rather than this one? So, in your opinion “(And that is what the intro stated so clinicaly.)” Huh? Are the parentheses magic? Can I go now? Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Lisnabreeny, I'm sorry but natural kinds have nothing whatsoever to do with what's going on the article's talk page right now and the discussion here hasn't focused on natural kinds either.
 * Walkinxyz says he has carte blanch based on this discussion. I don't see that here. I'd just like a simple, candid response regarding the extraordinary claims Walkinxyz is making. OK?

Linsabreeny found an analogue to the type of appeal to nature that Kompridis talks about, which is an analogue to the Greek appeal to nature, in that it sees an essence (or a kind, etc.) as a source of meaning, norms, etc. This is absolutely relevant. You were the one who brought up the Modern developments section for discussion.

Linsabreeny, I think it is a concept. Any source that discusses several "appeals to nature" is construing it or constructing as such.

As for these ridiculous allegations, that I say I have "carte blanch" about my "extraordinary" (sourced) claims, see the section on "Machine Elf's abuse" here.

Walkinxyz (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Machine Elf's abuse" language ends now. WP:NPA


 * That Kompridis talks about without saying "appeal to nature"? But you just know that's what he means... This isn't the article's talk page.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Linsabreeny, I think it is a concept. Any source that discusses several "appeals to nature" is construing it or constructing as such."
 * Yet they discuss several "appeals to nature" within the particular "appeal to nature" concept which they discuss. Which demonstrates that the words have meaning of their own, as well as being used as a label, for the particular concept being explored. Here is a quote from Coopers comments on Annas which i put when it was discussed in talk, "appeal to nature" is changed to something without essential intelligibility of its own to demonstrate:
 * [] "This first (ancientconceptx) is, therefore, an (ancientconceptx) as benevolent,.. It is nature as normative, not nature as a source of inescapabilities and unalterabilities, that the Stoics first appeal to. There is a second (ancientconceptx), too, and this one goes a great deal farther outside the 'ethical' as conceived by Annas in an effort to reach normative conclusions."
 * "Annas distinguishes between two sorts of (ancientconceptx) that she thinks the Greek theorists in general make...."
 * We see that without allowing normal interpretation of the terms words, we have a recursive incoherent tangle of definition: (x) is (x as p), (other x) is ((x without p) with q) , (x) is (x) and (other x).
 * I concluded we have to allow multiple concepts of "appeal to nature", as well as multiple "appeals to nature" (arguments). In the context of their works feilds, authors conceptualise "the/this/that/these appeal/s to nature".
 * This is all in response to objections which have been put by one editor not happy with how wording and sections comply with his understanding of "the appeal to nature concept" ("it is not an argument" etc) - which i have never found to be defined, yet is insisted to be an NPOV anchor of the article. Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Lisnabreeny, you are referring to me. I have no problem whatsoever with "the/this/that/these appeal/s to nature". The "ancient" appeal to nature per Annas? I'm not sure what you're referring to.
 * I did WP:AGF about your difficulty finding non-WP-derivative sources for the argument/fallacy. However, I did a search and had better luck.
 * Quite a few say it's one fallacy or another... outside of politics, most of them conformed to the good version in fallacy files. (The unnatural version seems like it might be the author's own).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I find Machine Elfs responses above characteristicaly sarcastic, dismissive ,unpleasant and unproductive. This editor has ignored, dismissed, and misrepresented my inputs from the day he first started editing the article (as a fallacy ref) during the deletion review. In my talk page he can be seen to lecture me about a talk page refactoring, where i moved one section of text to straighten time line, consolidated three short sections into one (concerning the deletion review which we hoped to move on from) and renamed one new section which i had clumsily named. He described my refactoring, innaccurately and uncharitably and did a refactor of his own blaming me for duplication and mess produced in his 'correction'. He started saying i lied about things (never found out what), and moved on to saying i lied about him "calling me a liar" ~(I did not call you a liar - i said you lie, "inccessant lies" etc). The only productive work Machine Elf has performed on the article was during the deletion review to establish the claim of fallacy. He has chastised me for attempting equality:"I think we both have everything to learn">"I dont give a damn about what you think..keep your comments about other editors to yourself(?)...is that understood?" I have on several occassions attempted diplomacy with charitable apologies, which have been refered to later as admissions of guilt. I have requested moderation or review of our conflict several times. I find him to be an abusive and disruptive wikibully frankly. Wikipedians concerned with such conflicts please do act. Apologies to everyone else for the racket involved in my attempts to resist such abuse. Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll pass on opining about your characteristic comments.
 * Well, if you produce a diff, I would discuss it with you at the article's talk page. Otherwise, be WP:CIVIL. I don't think it's appropriate, here in this forum, for you to carry on about the so-called lecture. I didn't let you rearrange the talk page history. Live with it. One needn't look far in this thread to see that you lie about me often and needlessly.
 * I expect you to be civil and to focus on the encyclopedia, rather than on what minor wrongs, from our short history, you can complain about to whom. Please feel free to provide diffs at ANI. I challenge you to provide a diff where I call you a liar. I gave you extensive feedback on the lies you tell but that got old quick.
 * It would be a waste of effort for me to work on the article. I consider writing responses exactly like this one to count toward the work I've done for that article. A veritable magnum opus.
 * Yes, I told you to keep your opinions about what you think I need to learn to yourself.
 * You put an expert tag on the article and announced that a real expert would have nothing to do with it. Yet, meanwhile, you were clucking about how WPPhilosophy wasn't coming to fix it.
 * Consider it a challenge to deliver a diff showing your "attempted diplomacy" or "charitable apologies" or whatever you mean about admission of guilt.
 * You've been encouraged to seek out advice. Because we were editing the talk page, rather than the article... there was nothing to moderate.
 * Lisnabreeny, you are not allowed to call me an "abusive and disruptive wikibully" because frankly, it's not only a lie, it's against policy. WP:NPA. That you've taken the opportunity to do so here, speaks for itself.
 * I'll second your motion, admins "concerned with such conflicts please do act" and hope.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second your motion, admins "concerned with such conflicts please do act" and hope.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Machine Elf wrote:"Be bold. You've made a pretty good case for dropping the source that says it's 1) a rule of thumb.. "
 * I have had to criticise that same insubstantial, privately published, incoherent source again and again (from weeks past) to get any recognition of its faults from M.E. And they have kept quoting it, in this very thread they quoted it as the only source "that gives a generic form for the argument" and argued their petty objection to 'and/or validity' with it :"because a source actually explains that for certain topics, an appeal to nature can be taken as a rule of thumb, rather than a fallacy, there's probably no need for a word of caution about so-called logical fallacies in general."
 * The source so central to Machine Elfs argument here, is fallacyfiles.org
 * There is nothing unusual about this switching of position and denial error from Machine Elf, it is a standard response of theirs to argue over points which have already been substantiated, with references which have already been shown to be insubstantial or irrelevant. Machine Elf did the same with a short Britanica article, paraphrasing it as though the sophists were significantly critical of appeal/s to nature, and in fact the article ended with this sentence: "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.".
 * It took me several hundred words of petition in discussion and multiple reverted edits to get the paraphrase fixed and i only succeeded in the end by pasting the direct quote on top of their paraphrase which was: "The Sophists were the first in Ancient Greece to challenge this understanding of nature."
 * One can not ask for cogency or reflection from Machine Elf, who has moved from using the fallacyfiles.org blog-like page as one of his prime references, to occasionaly admitting it's incoherence. Almost every comment i have had from them is erroneous. They have been sowing confusion and frustration not seeming to care about anything but instruction. Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll see you on the article's talk page Lisnabreeny.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, “multiple reverted edits” I didn't touch your Sophist edit, I love it. Central to my argument, that the referencing has been entirely up to you and that's why there's only 1 for fallacies?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, you got me, i suppose you will call that a lie. It is just a mistake, which perhaps 10% of my enflamed argument is. I extensively discussed that quote with you, and you just questioned my grounds. If you had read to the end of the article yourself, you should have realised it should not have been phrased as a challenge to ancient a.t.n but an origin.
 * The referencing has been entirely up to me? I dont remember touching any fallacy refs, i just single handedly had to argue against POV of the article which was supposedly supported by them for weeks, mostly against your own persuasions. Recently i have been drafting how to increase and reference the fallacy section myself. And all you do is try and snip out words and spike the lede with fallacy ref... You should save it for the review now Machine Elf. Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to engage in this argument over policy and civility going on here, but a since my comments are being dragged into other people's arguments, I've got a couple of comments:

Please nobody state on my behalf that I agree with them. Feel free to state that you agree with me, or that it sounds like I agree with you, or reference my comments in support of your position, but don't straight up claim that I back you unless I explicitly said so.

Regarding validity, cogency, soundness, and fallacy: these are all properties of arguments or inferences, not of propositions or anything else. The upshot of this is that there is nothing confusing about the notion of an informal fallacy: they are just fallacies that don't have to do with improper form per se, but rather with untrue (usually unstated and merely assumed) premises. As a result, if appeal to nature is a fallacy, specifically an informal one, then that affects the cogency, and thus soundness, of arguments using it, but not necessarily their validity.
 * 1) Validity is the only one of them concerned solely with formal matters, as validity consists just in proper form and nothing else: an argument is valid if and only if its form is proper to show how the truth of the conclusion is entailed by the truth of the premises.
 * 2) Cogency is concerned not with form at all but with the truth of premises: an argument is cogent if and only if all its premises are true.
 * 3) Soundness is the combination of cogency and validity: an argument is sound if and only if its premises are true and its form is proper.
 * 4) Fallacy is the opposite of soundness: an argument is fallacious if any of its premises are false or if its form is improper.

Whether appeal to nature is fallacy depends on the truth of the unstated premise which defines the appeal, namely that the natural is necessarily good. This in turn depends on the definition of "natural". And while I think we need a source to back the claim that appeal to nature is a fallacy, especially as that claim is disputed, it should be noted that arguing on talk pages how it is not a fallacy on the grounds of stipulated definitions of nature is pointless: you would need all reliable sources agreeing on a definition of natural and agreeing that that is necessarily good, otherwise you are doing original research or at best synthesis. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As a matter of interest does any editor involved in this discussion seriously believe or hold that the natural is necessarily (or contingently) good? It seems such a bizarre idea that I would be intrigued to hear from somebody who thinks they can defend the position. Presumably they will have to say of each of the following that they are not natural or that they are good.  Smallpox, rape, pillage, constipation, murder, snot, cancer,  zenophobia, racism, selfishness, breaking any or the ten comandments, protons, neutrons, the moon, each grain of sand in the Sahara desert, every fragment of rock or cloud of gas in the universe. If there are no defenders of the natural is necessarily (or contingently) good presumable all of us contributing to this discussion must hold that the so-called appeal to nature argument is not cogent (because its mp is false) and thefore it is an informal fallacy if we accept Pfhorrest's account of the use of that term. &mdash; Philogos (talk)  06:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting question, but for that very reason it perhaps gives no easy way out. I might be wrong but I think there might still be people who might consider that for example Aristotle had the solution to these problems, or at least an explanation no worse than any other. And anyway Aristotle is still notable enough that we have to count him as a current subject. Of course it requires a completely different way of defining nature (some bad things are because of accidents, which are not natural, and if I understand correctly they involve cases where two natures are trying to actualize in conflict with each other in the same matter which has two potential natures, etc etc. In effect some natures fail to achieve themselves. Please do not judge me on this quick summary!). I think we also can't veto him on the grounds of his having a special definition of nature as nature is always a bit hard to define anyway, also for those of us who take the modern approach. Many of the things you mention are also specifically human actions and that raises another question of course. Are human deliberate actions parts of nature? I would personally say they are, but I know not everyone sees it that way. Anyway Aristotle, to use him again, would say all human actions aim at some good. They just don't often get it right. In particular humans desire more than they should, and this is part of their nature. This is still understandable teleologically according to my understanding of Aristotle because this eros, when properly directed, allows the achievement of the highest form of humanity, which is a philosophical life.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't allude to being able to give the question a strong philosophical treatment, but i do believe that ,being natural to a system is in some important ways inherently good for it, in a strong inductive sense. Being natural to a 'natural' system, implies having been naturally selected by it, or implies natural selection within that system has taken place in its presence, so some natural selection has occurred with or to the thing in question. Not being natural to a system, implies the system has not yet adjusted to it (should this be necessary), (by the whatever means the system is adjusted or self adjusts). This argument is sourced in the present article to a biochemists statement about the relative disruptiveness of synthetic hormones to (the natural system of) human health.
 * The arguments of fallacy, i have difficulty following because the various appeals to nature are so complex and i personally find many compelling, rationally as well as instinctive/ideologically even spiritually (indigenous cultures often have a special regard for what appears to be natural). A fallacy must not be just a rule of thumb, it must be a certain case to say, there is no merit in an argument of a certain kind. Appeals to nature have been identified as being of a certain kind, but nowhere has the charge of fallacy been substantiated, only quite briefly or less than coherently in a few refs, so far. If a wikipedia page charges a concept with fallacy without due consideration, then by its influence, it potentially does a great disservice to rational discourse, which is the opposite of what the identification of fallacy is meant to do. Lisnabreeny (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears from the above (corrrect me if I am wrong) that neither Andrew Lancaster, nor Lisnabreeny seriously believe or hold that the natural is necessarily (or contingently)  good.  Therefore they must ackowledge, surely that the so-called appeal to nature argument is not cogent (because its mp is false) and therefore it is an informal fallacy (if we accept Pfhorrest's account of the use of that term.) Yes? No? &mdash; Philogos (talk)  21:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the ancient context, I don't believe an appeal to nature intended a missing premise that the natural is necessarily good. I clipped a somewhat overly long analysis of how one might formalize natural claims here. For Aristotle, at least, the natural is said of things that are "all or for the most part", and so admits exceptions. In the ancient sense, the good, and of human nature, the right, is in reference to something more akin to Plato's Form of the Good than what one might think today... my only point of contention has been that we need to cite a source rather than a talk page. The phrase appears to have been coined by Walkinxyz, and so I've challenged its compliance with that policy. This was argued ad nauseum and ad hominem.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't follow you Philogo, until i found this:
 * www.logicalfallacies.info []
 * "Informal Fallacies
 * Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true. Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only establishes that its conclusion is probably true.


 * All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid, and so “fallacious” in the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are not intended to, entail the truth of the argument’s conclusion, and so even the best inductive argument falls short of deductive validity.


 * Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and bad deductive arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label: “invalid”). The terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak”.


 * An example of a strong inductive argument would be:
 * (1) Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
 * Therefore:
 * (2) The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.


 * Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments commit fallacies in addition to formal fallacies. It is these “informal fallacies” that are most often described by guides to good thinking, and that are the primary concern of most critical thinking courses and of this site."


 * But I will still argue from this that an "Appeal to nature fallacy" should not be presented as a well established one, in the article. Because no sources show that popular appeals to nature "fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments".


 * We could do a review of the various positions of the sources which do describe an "appeal to nature fallacy" (which i find mistaken and conflicting) and the lack of description in other, most substantial fallacy refs (eg. ) which do not describe it or anything like it, in the talk page.  Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also note that this term is solidly referenced as used as a kind of philosophical argument and grouping of arguments, which is why discussion of its fallacious reputations was moved out of the intro and the section "Rational Argument" created. How could proffessional philosophers throughtout feilds and ages spend so much time on arguments of a type which could sensibly be labelled as a fallacy? Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * With Lisnabreeny's changes yesterday it would seem that the question of sourcing "cogency and/or validity" is moot. What "Machine Elf disagrees with" is that it can go without sourcing. It's true, I also don't believe it can be sourced, but the invitation to provide a source still stands. As a peace offering, I'd be willing to say that the one and only source offered later was at best WP:SYN, but the WP:V failure is now moot.
 * Various sources claim various fallacies are committed by various appeals to nature... only one source is included in the article thus far. It claims that it can be taken as a rule of thumb, (not a fallacy). It also claims that some consider it to be a fallacy of relevance, such as the skeptic who's attributed opinion was quoted in the article. Other sources could be included to represent different opinions on whether or not it's a fallacy, and if so, why (or what kind). Just to be clear: we could probably find some sources regarding missing premises and I'm not arguing that such sources should be excluded on the basis of my comments above. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)