Is the "naturalistic fallacy" a fallacy?

[Aridas]

If it's an assigned characteristic dictated by a standard then it's not an arbitrary use of words anymore, it's measured by the standard.

If it is being dictated by a standard, yes. I asked it separately, though, because whether there is a standard in the first place is not something that I would know for any particular example. If there isn't, it could still be referring to an arbitrary set of attributes that don't necessarily imply better. It's worth remembering that my post was in response to a claim that products having "natural" on the label could only mean that the naturalistic fallacy was being invoked.

It's all natural by definition

For some uses of natural, at least. I actually don't like the word natural particularly much because of how many separate uses there are and how easily some people seem to want to either conflate different uses or just jump from meaning to meaning without noting the change of usage.

Well "saying" there's a correlation between two groups isn't as interesting as demonstrating it, so there's no real point to waving around such a caveat emptor.

Saying that there may be a correlation, for reference. I don't actually know, but I wouldn't be surprised at all whichever way it might turn out. I will agree that the statement in question wasn't strictly necessary, given the actual argument put forth, but... by what he quoted, bjornart was also challenging the point that a correlation doesn't necessarily invoke the fallacy. Saying that there may be a correlation between the things with the color purple on them and the things with the color green on them in a business with a logo that includes both colors isn't really saying that the color green is on things because of the color purple, for example, if there is a correlation.

Now, if there was a correlation that was named or demonstrated I'd find that very interesting. Correlation along with condition does make a case for causation though.

I would also find it interesting, for that matter. And I apologize, but I'm not certain about which use of condition that you're using here.

As for the two arbitrary groups (I only counted one BTW, the rigor that demonstrates "natural", I'm guessing the other group is "better")

I was more using arbitrary in the sense that which meaning of natural is being used is arbitrary, for that, and that which other category was chosen is likely rather arbitrary. Better tasting and healthier are easy choices for the latter, but far from the only ones that could be chosen. For the former, I had cited products with "natural" on their label, originally, and intended to stay with that.

I think that if the Naturalistic Fallacy is defined with "natural is best" as a tautology does invoke the naturalistic fallacy if the rigor of natural is defined and in itself is also "best". But I never took philosophy...

If the "natural" label was indeed being claimed as why the product was simply better than products without that label, then yes, it would be invoked. My overall point was, rather simply, that having "natural" on a label does not necessarily mean that the fallacy is being invoked and thinking that there is or may be a correlation between those products and an arbitrary picked other category of products in a very limited setting does not necessarily invoke it either. It can, yes, if there is a causation claim, but does not need to do so under all conditions.