Is the "naturalistic fallacy" a fallacy?

[Ron Webb]

I think this is partly caused by living in a very human-shaped environment, and we are unaware of how dangerous nature was before we tamed animals and cultivated plants.

A great example of this is almonds.

Personally, I enjoy how the most powerful toxin known to man is entirely natural and produced by bacteria.

Of course there are exceptions, as I said. But still, if I blindfolded you and forced you to pick something at random and eat it, would you rather do so in a natural wilderness or a DuPont lab?

 

[Ron Webb]

I'm not sure such a random selection is the best approach. I think (but it's your question in the end) that a fairer way to compare the natural with the synthetic would be to make like-for-like comparisons based on function, e.g. artificial food flavourings versus natural ones, or wool vs. nylon, or pasteurised vs. non-pasteurised milk.

True. I realize there are many different ways to look at it, and I'm not sure which approach is best. I'm just saying that we shouldn't dismiss out of hand the claim that "X is better (safer, healthier, whatever) than Y, because X is natural and Y is synthetic." Intuitively, I think there is some validity to it. In my experience, the dangerous chemicals that I encounter in my daily life are more likely to come from synthetic rather than natural sources.

 

[Ron Webb]

I think if you closer at the words I've bolded you'll realize why exactly it is we use regulations and testing rather then assuming natural things are good for you.

Yup, testing is always good, but it's not perfect either. It's not a choice of naturalism "rather than" testing, but in addition to testing: the knowledge that a given substance is natural rather than synthetic does seem to provide a somewhat greater probability of safety, etc.

 

[Pulvinar]

Of course there are exceptions, as I said. But still, if I blindfolded you and forced you to pick something at random and eat it, would you rather do so in a natural wilderness or a DuPont lab?

If the wilderness included poisonous plants and the DuPont lab was this one, I'd choose the lab.

 

[Ron Webb]

We are on the same page as far as the Naturalistic Fallacy being a fallacy. And I would agree that in the supermarket context, it is not a very useful heuristic for judging the healthiness of your food.

Are you implying that it might be a useful heuristic elsewhere, but not in a supermarket? Why not?

 

[Ron Webb]

If the wilderness included poisonous plants and the DuPont lab was this one, I'd choose the lab.

Did I mention there are exceptions? In general, where would you rather conduct the experiment: a randomly chosen lab, or a randomly chosen natural environment?

 

[Aridas]

No, I think you're exaggerating the naturalistic position. Nobody is saying that synthetic substances are always bad, and nobody is saying that whatever is natural is always good. The argument is simply that in general, synthetic things are more likely to be harmful than natural things. Of course we all know there are exceptions.

You sure you're not confusing yourself a bit? They were pointing out what the "naturalistic fallacy" actually is. It's actually a specific fallacy. Something is good, BECAUSE it's natural is not always true, in short, hence why it's a fallacy. It's also more general. I've mostly heard it used to justify particular moral positions.

Holding a position where one thinks that natural foods and drinks are more likely to be better for a person than synthetic foods and drinks does not automatically invoke the naturalistic fallacy. It can, but only if the reasons cited include "because they're natural," as opposed to more direct reasons. The position may be right or wrong, but it will not invoke that particular fallacy if it's not using that particular reason.

 

[Pulvinar]

Did I mention there are exceptions? In general, where would you rather conduct the experiment: a randomly chosen lab, or a randomly chosen natural environment?

Isn't outer space natural? There's a quite of a lot to randomly choose from. Or by "natural" do you mean just those environments which are human-friendly?

 

[LSSBB]

Did I mention there are exceptions? In general, where would you rather conduct the experiment: a randomly chosen lab, or a randomly chosen natural environment?

At this point, you are stating a belief about natural things in general being better. You need more than anecdotal evidence to make your case, I think you need to define your taxonomy and then do a comprehensive survey and then take it from there with feedback from others.

Good luck with that.

 

[Cavemonster]

Did I mention there are exceptions? In general, where would you rather conduct the experiment: a randomly chosen lab, or a randomly chosen natural environment?

For one thing, a lab is a very specific subset of "unnatural" where chemical substances are normally stored for the express reason that they are particularly strongly active. It's not a random sampling of man made materials in the way that a randomly chosen natural environment is.

If you wanted a more parallel experiment, you'd compare a random natural environment with a random man made environment, like your bedroom, or, yes, a supermarket, or a bus station.

But above and beyond that, the appeal to nature isn't invoked to compare arbitrarily chosen natural and man made things. It doesn't counter the labelling as a fallacy to say that eating thistles is safer than drinking bleach.

When the appeal to nature is invoked, it's generally a case of someone saying that "natural" substances or practices are inherently better than "unnatural" alternatives. It's important to note that we're comparing proposed alternatives. So we're not selecting arbitrarily from the whole sets of "natural" and "unnatural" we're comparing the substances and practices in those sets which have been deemed safe or useful by other evaluations.

No scientists are saying "Instead of eating plant based foods, instead drink random chemicals!". No hippies are being labelled as fallacious for saying "Wild carrots are healthier than drinking random chemicals from the Dow labs!".

 

[lopeyschools]

Are you implying that it might be a useful heuristic elsewhere, but not in a supermarket? Why not?

Because we don't put poisonous food in supermarkets...

 

[Gr8wight]

Obviously there are natural things that are very dangerous, and manufactured things that are benign, but it still seems to me that the odds are strongly in favour of natural source things being safer than non-natural.

This is known as the argument from personal incredulity.

 

[angrysoba]

A fallacy doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong, only that the reasoning is wrong.

You could come to a perfectly correct conclusion and make an appalling argument.

 

[Ron Webb]

You sure you're not confusing yourself a bit? They were pointing out what the "naturalistic fallacy" actually is. It's actually a specific fallacy. Something is good, BECAUSE it's natural is not always true, in short, hence why it's a fallacy. It's also more general. I've mostly heard it used to justify particular moral positions.

I think that last point is the key. In subsequent Web surfing I have learned that the term "naturalistic fallacy" was coined by the British philosopher G. E. Moore, who meant it specifically to apply to ethics, i.e. that something is ethically good because it's natural. I think we all agree that this is a fallacy.

However, I have often heard the term used (or misused) more generally to dismiss claims of natural products (vitamins, medicine, etc.) that their product is safer or more effective than the competition because it is natural. I think it's fair to say that such claims are often overblown (as is most advertising), but I also don't think it's fair to say they are fallacious.

 

[LSSBB]

I think that last point is the key. In subsequent Web surfing I have learned that the term "naturalistic fallacy" was coined by the British philosopher G. E. Moore, who meant it specifically to apply to ethics, i.e. that something is ethically good because it's natural. I think we all agree that this is a fallacy.

However, I have often heard the term used (or misused) more generally to dismiss claims of natural products (vitamins, medicine, etc.) that their product is safer or more effective than the competition because it is natural. I think it's fair to say that such claims are often overblown (as is most advertising), but I also don't think it's fair to say they are fallacious.

Fallacious? To be determined. Unsupported? Definitely.

 

[Ron Webb]

Isn't outer space natural? There's a quite of a lot to randomly choose from. Or by "natural" do you mean just those environments which are human-friendly?

Outer space is not a natural environment for humans. It takes quite a bit of technology to get there.

 

[Ron Webb]

At this point, you are stating a belief about natural things in general being better. You need more than anecdotal evidence to make your case, I think you need to define your taxonomy and then do a comprehensive survey and then take it from there with feedback from others.

Yup, I'm stating a belief, based solely on personal experience. The purpose of original post was to see if that belief, and that personal experience, is shared by others. A "comprehensive survey" would be interesting but I don't have the time or the resources for it.

 

[Pulvinar]

Outer space is not a natural environment for humans. It takes quite a bit of technology to get there.

Then by "natural environments for humans" you mean places where humans have wandered and not been killed by the environment? I hope you at least see why that sort of question-begging makes your comparison useless.

 

[Ron Webb]

Are you implying that it might be a useful heuristic elsewhere, but not in a supermarket? Why not?

Because we don't put poisonous food in supermarkets...

Well, I guess if you start from that assumption then you're right, we don't need a heuristic. However, some of the food in our supermarkets does do us harm in the long term.

Many of the known harmful ingredients, such as fat, sugar, and salt, are found in natural foods as well; but we know about them and can avoid them. The question is, how do we avoid the ones we don't know about? And IMHO one possible answer, though by no means a perfect or definitive answer, is to look for natural ingredients with less processing. Odds are that they will be safer and healthier.

 

[LSSBB]

Yup, I'm stating a belief, based solely on personal experience. The purpose of original post was to see if that belief, and that personal experience, is shared by others. A "comprehensive survey" would be interesting but I don't have the time or the resources for it.

They way I take that is that you are asking whether 'belief' is a fallacy. My answer to that is: in the context of trying to prove a point, using 'belief' is a fallacy.