Naturalistic Fallacy


Note: What the hell is ethical non-naturalism! Human being are a part
of nature. They are a part of Darwinian evolution. I admit adding
qualitative qualities like goodness, brutal, superior, inferior, right,
wrong, etc. to the natural phenomena of Darwinian evolution are
irrelevant and examples of the Naturalistic Fallacy. Assuming one could
even engage in non-naturalistic ethics what applicability would it have
to a natural creature? I've argued basically that organized social
systems aren't successful at sublimating or thwarting our primal
instincts. Indeed, such organized social systems have often been a
leading carrier for them. The word
"morality" and "ethical" is itself a naturalistic fallacy. That doesn't
mean there aren't ethical individuals (good samaritan) or somebody like
Wallenburg (righteous Gentile) but from an evolutionary view (here I go
using the Naturalistic Fallacy) there is no morality or ethics.

It is impossible not to use the Naturalistic Fallacy. Personally, I
respect the sanctity of life in general, have an interest in the
preservation and continuation of the species and have stressed all
along the Darwinian evolution, given our current environment, is
hostile to this. I don't think that is a Naturalistic Fallacy.
Furthermore, I've stated in brief a possible future way out of the
evolutionary imbroglio. Not once in this group have I come across a
person who has acknowledged this or given any credence to it. Maybe it
is so obvious it is like going to the toilet.

Michael Ragland




http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Naturalistic_Fallacy

Basic Definition:
Naturalistic fallacy - when what 'ought to be' is derived from
what 'is'; also known as a perspective which reduces the question
of values to that of facts; logically classified as a fallacy of
definition, diversion or irrelevance.

Naturalistic fallacy was originally presented by G.E. Moore in his book
Principia Ethics in 1903, though first addressed by David Hume in the
18th century. In the 21st century, it deals with ethics as well as
other philosophical topics in natural science, social science and
humanities.

Nuanced Definition:
Naturalistic fallacy addresses the 'nature' of what is natural and
what is not natural. Even the prospect that there are non-natural
things or propositions can be considered illogical or alien to
naturalistic thinkers. A naturalistic fallacy is therefore not simply a
logical fallacy, but must be considered within a wider context.

Naturalism (as ideology) is a direct effect or benefactor of the
naturalistic fallacy - naturalism being the idea that all
explanations and descriptions of the universe and humankind must be
based on a 'natural' understanding of our-selves and universe,
given that human beings are a part of nature.

If a person semantically equates a natural category with a non-natural
category (e.g. 'pleasure is good'), they commit a naturalistic
fallacy. The type of linguistic reductionism exhibited by a
naturalistic fallacy restricts the input of metaphysics from defining
any ethical value. In this way, making the claim that morality and
ethics are based inevitably and solely on what is 'natural' is an
example of such a restricted view.

Likewise, to say that something is 'more evolved' than something
else, and to infer terms such as 'better' or 'higher' for that
particular 'stage of evolution' also displays a naturalistic
fallacy. Higher and better imply qualitative judgements upon what is
considered lower and worse, which makes an extemely tenuous linkage in
such areas as social-cultural or ethical theory. This is the context in
which G.E. Moore framed his critique of reductionism and his insistence
on ethical non-naturalism.

The topic of naturalizing things that are not natural or of
categorizing things that are beyond natural explanations can be found
in Aristotle and Plato, as well as other philosophers and theologians
throughout history, such as Lucretius, Athanasius, Augustine, Avicenna,
Anselm, Maimonides, Aquinas, Occam, Copernicus, Spinoza, Newton,
Goethe, W. Paley, Comte, H. Spencer, Nietzsche, Einstein, Berdyaev, M.
Mead, J. Dewey and many others.

Modern versions of the fallacy are often traced to C. Darwin and to
neo-Darwinism, whereby naturalistic thought is elevated into a
philosophical worldview known as naturalism. Darwin was a
'naturalist' on an around-the-world journey. Naturalism is now
often defined as anti-theistic, or simply as a secular philosophy of
the world and human existence, which is fully self-contained and driven
primarily by the central process-oriented concept of evolution.

"The Nature of Nature" conference held at Baylor University in 2000
was a staging point for discussions about what is natural and what
nature encompasses in a post-modern arena of academia. It incorporated
the views of theologians, philosophers and scientists from a variety of
religious and secular backgrounds. This conference left open many
questions for diverse viewpoints on nature, the super-natural and the
non-natural, and provided a platform for the intelligent design
movement (IDM) to further elaborate upon its investigations into
finding purpose and meaning in nature.

"Even leaving aside the creation of the world and focussing solely on
human acts of creation, do we find that naturalistic categories have
fully explained human creativity?" - W. Dembski (Intelligent
Design, 1999)

What alternatives or comparatives are available to the concept of
'natural'? Several options are offered: social, cultural,
historical, linguistic, logical, physical, biotic, spatial, numerical
or spiritual; these are all respective concepts or categories for
humankind that contain a different message than what is 'purely'
natural. Outside of the disciplines/fields of natural science, these
concepts hold their own communicative legitimacy, even if they are
deemed secondary or less than fundamental to natural scientists.
Indeed, the hierarchical priority of current academic science is a
direct corollary of the naturalistic fallacy, where importance is
placed upon natural-scientific explanations and methods ahead of
others.

Naturalistic fallacies may therefore be seen as a legacy of
Enlightenment thinking, as far as they perpetuate the myth that Reason,
Science and Progress are sole referents to meaning, value and order in
human life. As far as evolutionary theory has contributed to the
respectability of natural sciences, including, but not exclusive of
biology, chemistry, botany, geology, ecology, zoology, and general
physiology, it is fair to say that evolutionism (as ideology) is the
greatest modern example of a naturalistic fallacy.

If everything evolves, then there ought to be nothing that cannot be
explained by evolutionary theories, including the writing of 'these
words here' that are being used to describe evolution and
naturalistic fallacy. All things evolve and thus all things are
natural. It is the nature of things to be natural. This is the end of
metaphysical-naturalist stories, a fallacy that is only sometimes
revealed for what it truly is.

Contemporary scholars and thinkers need not, however, succumb to such
hegemony among scientific ideas. For notions like basic
change-over-time, organic development and genetic non-determinism,
there are non-naturalistic explanations and categories to be found that
alleviate over-dependence on what is natural. Likewise, methodological
naturalism need not promote scientific, linguistic or ethical
relativism as a common rule of contemporary academic propriety.

A naturalistic fallacy is found both in the wording and in
interpretation. The influence of language and linguistic theory must be
contextualized in any discussion of naturalism and scientism,
especially as they relate to the limits of natural law. Science and
nature cannot be considered self-sufficient terms with which to
understand human life and existence on topics such as origins, meaning,
human purpose and teleology. Other ideas and concepts/percepts can and
ought to be used to supplement science and nature in this regard. The
author(s) of any scientific, philosophical or theological text is still
relevant, but his or her authority has by now been called into
question.

Examples:
One example of a naturalistic fallacy is 'ethical naturalism,'
which reduces ethics to only natural explanations. All ethical things
are said to be explainable naturally, which then leads to viewpoints of
ethical relativity and social chaos or anomie.

"It has been rightly stated that morality - and this must include
both theory and the practice of ethics - is in the throes of an
appalling crisis." - E. Durkheim (The Division of Labour in
Society, <1893> 1984)

Secondly, there is a reverse perspective available for natural science
toward evolution. An explosion (e.g. as in the geologically so-called
'Cambrian Explosion') doesn't happen gradually and cannot be a
mere trial and error adaptation caused by natural selection. An
explosion is normally considered the result of human selection or
invention, which necessitates a different conversational dynamic than
what is primarily accessible through evolutionary principles.
Naturalism is thus not a philosophical inevitability; even for those
working in natural sciences. It is thus a naturalistic fallacy to
insist an explosion ought to happen gradually by a natural process of
species variation and differentiation enacted through random mutations.


Thirdly, the emergence of a new challenge to naturalistic thought and
naturalistic fallacies may now be cited. Theories of intelligent design
(ID) invoke a design theoretic to challenge naturalism, secularism and
anti-theism of the neo-Darwinian evolutionary paradigm. Though the
'science of design' is still not without contention and doesn't
enjoy a singular elaboration, a post-Darwinian challenge to
naturalistic ideology is clearly implied by the IDM.

Care is required to protect evolution from the naturalistic fallacy.
Claims to justify divine realism, as in a neo-Pascalian wager, or to
invoke a rationalistic or positivistic proof of divinity, could lead to
a case where theological ethics fall prey their own forms of
naturalistic fallacy. This happens when prescribing duties and
responsibilities on the basis of purely descriptive theological
premises. Such potentiality shows the multiplicity of sides to a
pluralistic understanding of naturalistic fallacy early in the 21st
century.


"Whence did the wond'rous mystic art arise,
Of painting SPEECH and speaking to the eyes?
That we by tracing magic lines are taught,
How to embody and to colour THOUGHT?"
- Alexander Pope
(In Marshall McLuhan's The Medium is the Massage, 1967)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Steven Js Oct 07 POTM nomination should be abandoned; filled
    ... is not involved with nature or reality. ... but that science cannot detect such ... Sounds pretty close to what we would call methodological naturalism ... naturalism and evolution means that God is involved with nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Steven Js Oct 07 POTM nomination should be abandoned; filled
    ... is not involved with nature or reality. ... but that science cannot detect such ... Sounds pretty close to what we would call methodological naturalism ... naturalism and evolution means that God is involved with nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Steven Js Oct 07 POTM nomination should be abandoned; filled
    ... is not involved with nature or reality. ... Methodological naturalism was the standard operating ... Brazen lie. ... naturalism and evolution means that God is involved with nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Steven Js Oct 07 POTM nomination should be abandoned; filled
    ... is not involved with nature or reality. ... Methodological naturalism was the standard operating ... naturalism and evolution means that God is involved with nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My View of God
    ... intelligent nature, as opposed to intelligent activity demonstrated ... ID used by SETI scientists, in particular, could also be applied to ... since you claim not to be seeking evidence for inference to ... Methodological naturalism is just a fancy way of saying that we humans ...
    (talk.origins)