![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page as-is seems fairly unclear to me, replete with unexplained/unlinked philosophical jargon and even latin terms. Is this complexity an unavoidable consequence of explaining a big concept in a way that's precise and accurate? Or could it be edited into simpler English without loss of value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.109.90 ( talk) 00:27, 7 April 2004 (UTC)
It might be worth pointing out that Moore is potentially making the Fallacy of Division. For instance, a materialist argues that "yellow" (in the sense of qualia) arises from yellow light and the organisation of neurons in the individual's brain.
This suggestion seems like original research not appropriate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.115.49 ( talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Added "Finally, appeal to popularity fallacy (argumentum ad populum) is also used to describe arguments in which a majority opinion is taken as proof of an assertion's validity (i.e., if eighty-percent of people believe in God then there must be a God)." If anyone thinks this falls under a different category of (il)logic let me know but I first encountered the popular fallacy in this context. Marskell 11:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"Democratic fallacy"? Certainly not naturalistic fallacy. CSMR 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Would be good, if we also could get an article on this one!
The Moralistic Fallacy is a flawed logical argument which assumes the way the world `ought` to be is the way the world is. Asside from the problems with decideing how hte world ought to be, it does not accept flaws in the world. Compare: Naturalistic Fallacy.
Every time I've seen "naturalistic fallacy" used, it hsa been to refer to the notion that, "This behavior is natural; therefore, this behavior is morally acceptable". This article seems to imply that this is incorrect in that the original user of the phrase meant something slightly different. What I'm wondering is whether anybody uses it in Moore's sense these days. I'm assuming that popular usage has drifted. Does Moore's usage still prevail among professionals? Or is the main definition given here mainly a historical one? Thanks, -- William Pietri 19:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The part of this article on Moore is good, but this part about the Is-Ought meaning of the fallacy is very bad and will not help anyone.--A Philosopher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.115.49 ( talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Moore famously claimed that naturalists were guilty of what he called the “naturalistic fallacy. ... ... The naturalistic fallacy is very poorly named indeed (a point also made by Bernard Williams; see Williams 1985: 121–122). For not only is it not especially a problem for naturalists, it is also not really a fallacy even if Moore is right that it embodies a mistake of some kind. 173.68.153.97 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I cleared up the section on other uses of the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" but I am not sure about it still. Are "is-ought" confusions properly called naturalistic fallacies and if so what is the difference between the naturalistic fallacy here and the reverse naturalistic fallacy? CSMR 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If the category is changed, should the intro be changed as well? Rfrisbie talk 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- should sui generis be pluralised?
No, suus can mean their as well as his or her. Seadowns ( talk) 11:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I studied continental philosophy, ... we learned several times in many different courses that Kant was responsible for first identifying this fallacy. So what is going on here? - Abscissa 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please: Someone correct the typos! Here is one glaring one: "In using his categorical imperative Kant deduced that experience was necessary for their application." What does "their" refer to in this sentence? No, it is NOT obvious; if it were I would not have taken the time to post this. I would avoid the use of personal pronouns as much as possible; it is better to specifically name the referent each time, even at the risk of repetitiousness. The only time it is 100% safe is when there is no other possible referent. Frustrating, trying to read some of these articles. 68.190.23.42 ( talk) 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I've never read this, but it is a classic work in ethics, no? My question is why does it redirect here? Surely there was more to the book that pointing this fallacy out? Richard001 06:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This section needs some work. E.g.:
Still holds a lot of weight, eh? According to the author of this entry, perhaps. But then, why is an author of an article in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, making such an evaluative claim? If this person really thinks it needs to be mentioned, I could suggest: "Some theologians still find Aquinas' argument persuasive". Some philosophers might agree with the definition, but very few would find the argument "Aquinas held that what is good, is what is natural, in that God created all things and they were good" very persuasive. Also, the phrasing, "the supposed 'naturalistic fallacy'" indicates the author's bias. I think a survey of scholars in the field of philosophy would likely show that the naturalistic fallacy is a widely accepted term and recognized as a fallacious form of reasoning. However, since no such survey has been done (at least none that I'm aware of), it doesn't belong in the article. A less slanted version might be, "...against what many philosophers have judged to be a fallacious method of reasoning". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.54.114 ( talk) 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The citation under 'References' is not from the Principia Ethica. It has no page or paragraph number, but I'm quite sure that it doesn't occur anywhere in the work. Does anyone know where it comes from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbeek ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I would suggest removing the discussion of Aquinas entirely; it is unrelated to the topic and adds little. Amgreg ( talk) 21:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm unclear if Moore was be suggesting utilitarianism and similar ethical systems would be considered to suffer from this fallacy. Don't these say that something natural (pleasure, happiness etc) can be used to define what is good? Richard001 ( talk) 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This topic seems extremely similar to the appeal to nature article. Maybe they should be merged? Deamon138 ( talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, since Moore defined the naturalistic fallacy in §10 and not §12, it would be better to cite this one, don't you think so? (§12 is an explaining example, but not the definition) Here the complete quote:
-- 89.247.23.82 ( talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Re the deleted section, 'Rubenarslan' asks "promotion"? No quotation of the alleged rebuttal. That's right there is no quotation. If Rubernarslan had asked for one this could have been provided. Does that automatically mean promotion? So anything that is stated without a quotation is a promotion. Fascinating. Regarding the alleged rebuttal. It is not alleged that it is a rebuttal. It IS a rebuttal, hence the title of the chapter The Artificialistic Fallacy'. Perhaps Rubernarslan should read the chapter instead of deleting details of the rebuttal of the naturalistic fallacy. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This page also supported the misunderstanding, which is conveyed very blatantly in the related article ' appeal to nature' that these clauses invalidate environmental and health science evaluation and promotion of natural products or methods. The pages have been cited disruptively in multiple online discussions, as valuing nature is 'apparently unscientific' and they seem to be fostering misnderstanding - facebook has its own mirror of WP's "appeal to nature" - [ [1]] A couple of smaller philosophy websites carry the confusion also.
I would welcome experienced philosophy editors' input on this matter. I would like to redirect "appeal to nature" to this article, which has a reasonable section on it, or relocate this section to replace the mistaken article. Lisnabreeny ( talk) 02:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the edit: ~'who says is may not be fallacious" - [ [2]] "The naturalistic fallacy is very poorly named indeed (a point also made by Bernard Williams; see Williams 1985: 121-122). For not only is it not especially a problem for naturalists, it is also not really a fallacy even if Moore is right that it embodies a mistake of some kind. For it is highly uncharitable to charge anyone who advances the sorts of arguments to which Moore alludes as having committed a logical fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisnabreeny ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"Some people use the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" to characterize inferences of the form "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesireable." Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality and environmentalism. While such inferences may or may not be fallacious,"
There is a lot of description of the fallacy, but no example of the fallacy in action. After reading the whole article, I'm still not sure what the fallacy is. Rwflammang ( talk) 10:58, 6 February 2015 (
I dare say I am a fool rushing in, but I shall try to answer what the core of the fallacy is. It is that, if you define a value in terms of some natural thing, you lose the ability to attribute, or deny, that value to that thing. For example, if you define social good as equality, it becomes merely a truism to say that equality is good, and merely a contradiction in terms to say that equality is not good. This would stultify discourse about values. (For this reason, I believe, R.M. Hare, at one period at least, used to introduce his pupils to the fallacy at the very beginning of their tuition with him, by setting them an essay that brought it out before he even met them.) Basically, I would maintain that to recognize that value-judgments are one category of things and factual statements are another category is also to accept the doctrine of the fallacy. I agree that this does not emerge very clearly from the article. I should be grateful if anybody wishes to comment on this. Seadowns ( talk) 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The beginning of the article warns against confusing the Naturalistic Fallacy with the Appeal to Nature. It says: "The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with a fallacious appeal to nature, a mistaken claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural)." However, in the section entitled "Appeal to Nature", the article quotes Professor Steven Pinker who says: "The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good." Thus, the quotation from Professor Pinker directly contradicts the warning at the beginning of the article. Should something be done about this? 2604:2000:C6A1:B900:F584:ECC5:541E:BAC7 ( talk) 21:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Why, exactly, is Sam Harris's opinion on this page? He's irrelevant in academic philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD55:4C10:D0D:76FB:553F:5D79 ( talk) 02:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The naturalistic fallacy and is-ought fallacy were introduced to me through a reading of... Either Bentham or Mill, can't remember. The author didn't support his utilitarian claim until the end of the reading, and when he did, he said that pleasure is good because it is desirable. However, this is not actually a natural fact about the world -- normally, words that end in "-able" describe a certain type of fact, like something is edible is something that is capable of being eaten. But something "desirable" is not something that is capable of being desired. Something "desirable" is something that ought to be desired. So the utilitarian has pretended to make a natural argument, that something is good because it has a certain natural quality (desirableness), but has in fact made a circular moral argument, that we ought to think of pleasure as a high moral good because we ought to think of it as a high moral good.
Would this be a helpful discussion for the article? I think it stands as a common, accessible example, both of people trying to get an "ought" from an "is," and of people trying to find a natural principle that explains morality. More importantly, I think the example illustrates just what is fallacious about these is-ought jumps, which might not be clear without such an example. Daniel J. Hakimi ( talk) 14:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Naturalistic fallacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi I'm new to wikipedia, but I understand what the problem is. Here's the fallacy. Man says thing is tasty. Man thinks thing must be good. Applies to medicine quite well, unfortunately. A medicine helps people out statistically by reducing suicide. It does so by turning them into zombies. Great. My mind is very dark, so you can see. I can't think of a better example though.
Not a fallacy. Medicine is great. Cures disease. People don't know how to use it properly and it's killing them, and I'd rather die of preventable disease. <<< I can see someone claiming this as a fallacy, even though it is not.
Entirely just hypothetical, no Freudian slips on the things I'm dealing with in family whatsoever. Feel free to sanitize my post, please do. I'm entirely in a dark place right now. Perfectly fine, it's getting resolved. I got her talking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:8309:C300:F045:636F:36F5:546E ( talk) 17:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Rrobertrowan (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Avadauer123.
— Assignment last updated by RudyCarnap ( talk) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page as-is seems fairly unclear to me, replete with unexplained/unlinked philosophical jargon and even latin terms. Is this complexity an unavoidable consequence of explaining a big concept in a way that's precise and accurate? Or could it be edited into simpler English without loss of value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.109.90 ( talk) 00:27, 7 April 2004 (UTC)
It might be worth pointing out that Moore is potentially making the Fallacy of Division. For instance, a materialist argues that "yellow" (in the sense of qualia) arises from yellow light and the organisation of neurons in the individual's brain.
This suggestion seems like original research not appropriate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.115.49 ( talk) 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Added "Finally, appeal to popularity fallacy (argumentum ad populum) is also used to describe arguments in which a majority opinion is taken as proof of an assertion's validity (i.e., if eighty-percent of people believe in God then there must be a God)." If anyone thinks this falls under a different category of (il)logic let me know but I first encountered the popular fallacy in this context. Marskell 11:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"Democratic fallacy"? Certainly not naturalistic fallacy. CSMR 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Would be good, if we also could get an article on this one!
The Moralistic Fallacy is a flawed logical argument which assumes the way the world `ought` to be is the way the world is. Asside from the problems with decideing how hte world ought to be, it does not accept flaws in the world. Compare: Naturalistic Fallacy.
Every time I've seen "naturalistic fallacy" used, it hsa been to refer to the notion that, "This behavior is natural; therefore, this behavior is morally acceptable". This article seems to imply that this is incorrect in that the original user of the phrase meant something slightly different. What I'm wondering is whether anybody uses it in Moore's sense these days. I'm assuming that popular usage has drifted. Does Moore's usage still prevail among professionals? Or is the main definition given here mainly a historical one? Thanks, -- William Pietri 19:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The part of this article on Moore is good, but this part about the Is-Ought meaning of the fallacy is very bad and will not help anyone.--A Philosopher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.115.49 ( talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Moore famously claimed that naturalists were guilty of what he called the “naturalistic fallacy. ... ... The naturalistic fallacy is very poorly named indeed (a point also made by Bernard Williams; see Williams 1985: 121–122). For not only is it not especially a problem for naturalists, it is also not really a fallacy even if Moore is right that it embodies a mistake of some kind. 173.68.153.97 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I cleared up the section on other uses of the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" but I am not sure about it still. Are "is-ought" confusions properly called naturalistic fallacies and if so what is the difference between the naturalistic fallacy here and the reverse naturalistic fallacy? CSMR 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If the category is changed, should the intro be changed as well? Rfrisbie talk 18:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- should sui generis be pluralised?
No, suus can mean their as well as his or her. Seadowns ( talk) 11:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I studied continental philosophy, ... we learned several times in many different courses that Kant was responsible for first identifying this fallacy. So what is going on here? - Abscissa 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please: Someone correct the typos! Here is one glaring one: "In using his categorical imperative Kant deduced that experience was necessary for their application." What does "their" refer to in this sentence? No, it is NOT obvious; if it were I would not have taken the time to post this. I would avoid the use of personal pronouns as much as possible; it is better to specifically name the referent each time, even at the risk of repetitiousness. The only time it is 100% safe is when there is no other possible referent. Frustrating, trying to read some of these articles. 68.190.23.42 ( talk) 23:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I've never read this, but it is a classic work in ethics, no? My question is why does it redirect here? Surely there was more to the book that pointing this fallacy out? Richard001 06:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This section needs some work. E.g.:
Still holds a lot of weight, eh? According to the author of this entry, perhaps. But then, why is an author of an article in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, making such an evaluative claim? If this person really thinks it needs to be mentioned, I could suggest: "Some theologians still find Aquinas' argument persuasive". Some philosophers might agree with the definition, but very few would find the argument "Aquinas held that what is good, is what is natural, in that God created all things and they were good" very persuasive. Also, the phrasing, "the supposed 'naturalistic fallacy'" indicates the author's bias. I think a survey of scholars in the field of philosophy would likely show that the naturalistic fallacy is a widely accepted term and recognized as a fallacious form of reasoning. However, since no such survey has been done (at least none that I'm aware of), it doesn't belong in the article. A less slanted version might be, "...against what many philosophers have judged to be a fallacious method of reasoning". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.54.114 ( talk) 08:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The citation under 'References' is not from the Principia Ethica. It has no page or paragraph number, but I'm quite sure that it doesn't occur anywhere in the work. Does anyone know where it comes from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbeek ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I would suggest removing the discussion of Aquinas entirely; it is unrelated to the topic and adds little. Amgreg ( talk) 21:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm unclear if Moore was be suggesting utilitarianism and similar ethical systems would be considered to suffer from this fallacy. Don't these say that something natural (pleasure, happiness etc) can be used to define what is good? Richard001 ( talk) 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This topic seems extremely similar to the appeal to nature article. Maybe they should be merged? Deamon138 ( talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, since Moore defined the naturalistic fallacy in §10 and not §12, it would be better to cite this one, don't you think so? (§12 is an explaining example, but not the definition) Here the complete quote:
-- 89.247.23.82 ( talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Re the deleted section, 'Rubenarslan' asks "promotion"? No quotation of the alleged rebuttal. That's right there is no quotation. If Rubernarslan had asked for one this could have been provided. Does that automatically mean promotion? So anything that is stated without a quotation is a promotion. Fascinating. Regarding the alleged rebuttal. It is not alleged that it is a rebuttal. It IS a rebuttal, hence the title of the chapter The Artificialistic Fallacy'. Perhaps Rubernarslan should read the chapter instead of deleting details of the rebuttal of the naturalistic fallacy. Zanze123 ( talk) 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This page also supported the misunderstanding, which is conveyed very blatantly in the related article ' appeal to nature' that these clauses invalidate environmental and health science evaluation and promotion of natural products or methods. The pages have been cited disruptively in multiple online discussions, as valuing nature is 'apparently unscientific' and they seem to be fostering misnderstanding - facebook has its own mirror of WP's "appeal to nature" - [ [1]] A couple of smaller philosophy websites carry the confusion also.
I would welcome experienced philosophy editors' input on this matter. I would like to redirect "appeal to nature" to this article, which has a reasonable section on it, or relocate this section to replace the mistaken article. Lisnabreeny ( talk) 02:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the edit: ~'who says is may not be fallacious" - [ [2]] "The naturalistic fallacy is very poorly named indeed (a point also made by Bernard Williams; see Williams 1985: 121-122). For not only is it not especially a problem for naturalists, it is also not really a fallacy even if Moore is right that it embodies a mistake of some kind. For it is highly uncharitable to charge anyone who advances the sorts of arguments to which Moore alludes as having committed a logical fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisnabreeny ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"Some people use the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" to characterize inferences of the form "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesireable." Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality and environmentalism. While such inferences may or may not be fallacious,"
There is a lot of description of the fallacy, but no example of the fallacy in action. After reading the whole article, I'm still not sure what the fallacy is. Rwflammang ( talk) 10:58, 6 February 2015 (
I dare say I am a fool rushing in, but I shall try to answer what the core of the fallacy is. It is that, if you define a value in terms of some natural thing, you lose the ability to attribute, or deny, that value to that thing. For example, if you define social good as equality, it becomes merely a truism to say that equality is good, and merely a contradiction in terms to say that equality is not good. This would stultify discourse about values. (For this reason, I believe, R.M. Hare, at one period at least, used to introduce his pupils to the fallacy at the very beginning of their tuition with him, by setting them an essay that brought it out before he even met them.) Basically, I would maintain that to recognize that value-judgments are one category of things and factual statements are another category is also to accept the doctrine of the fallacy. I agree that this does not emerge very clearly from the article. I should be grateful if anybody wishes to comment on this. Seadowns ( talk) 18:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The beginning of the article warns against confusing the Naturalistic Fallacy with the Appeal to Nature. It says: "The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with a fallacious appeal to nature, a mistaken claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural)." However, in the section entitled "Appeal to Nature", the article quotes Professor Steven Pinker who says: "The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good." Thus, the quotation from Professor Pinker directly contradicts the warning at the beginning of the article. Should something be done about this? 2604:2000:C6A1:B900:F584:ECC5:541E:BAC7 ( talk) 21:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Why, exactly, is Sam Harris's opinion on this page? He's irrelevant in academic philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD55:4C10:D0D:76FB:553F:5D79 ( talk) 02:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The naturalistic fallacy and is-ought fallacy were introduced to me through a reading of... Either Bentham or Mill, can't remember. The author didn't support his utilitarian claim until the end of the reading, and when he did, he said that pleasure is good because it is desirable. However, this is not actually a natural fact about the world -- normally, words that end in "-able" describe a certain type of fact, like something is edible is something that is capable of being eaten. But something "desirable" is not something that is capable of being desired. Something "desirable" is something that ought to be desired. So the utilitarian has pretended to make a natural argument, that something is good because it has a certain natural quality (desirableness), but has in fact made a circular moral argument, that we ought to think of pleasure as a high moral good because we ought to think of it as a high moral good.
Would this be a helpful discussion for the article? I think it stands as a common, accessible example, both of people trying to get an "ought" from an "is," and of people trying to find a natural principle that explains morality. More importantly, I think the example illustrates just what is fallacious about these is-ought jumps, which might not be clear without such an example. Daniel J. Hakimi ( talk) 14:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Naturalistic fallacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi I'm new to wikipedia, but I understand what the problem is. Here's the fallacy. Man says thing is tasty. Man thinks thing must be good. Applies to medicine quite well, unfortunately. A medicine helps people out statistically by reducing suicide. It does so by turning them into zombies. Great. My mind is very dark, so you can see. I can't think of a better example though.
Not a fallacy. Medicine is great. Cures disease. People don't know how to use it properly and it's killing them, and I'd rather die of preventable disease. <<< I can see someone claiming this as a fallacy, even though it is not.
Entirely just hypothetical, no Freudian slips on the things I'm dealing with in family whatsoever. Feel free to sanitize my post, please do. I'm entirely in a dark place right now. Perfectly fine, it's getting resolved. I got her talking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:8309:C300:F045:636F:36F5:546E ( talk) 17:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Rrobertrowan (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Avadauer123.
— Assignment last updated by RudyCarnap ( talk) 10:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)