When did the "appeal to nature" become a fallacy? WTF? Who in this fucking world first thought that being unnatural isn't reason enough for disregarding an argument?

File: 1.73 MB, 1240x1726, FaceApp_1592891238136.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:17:21 2020 No.15694301 [Reply] [Original]

When did the "appeal to nature" become a fallacy? WTF? Who in this fucking world first thought that being unnatural isn't reason enough for disregarding an argument?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:18:30 2020 No.15694308 >>15694301 >I can walk into a kindergarten naked because wearing clothes is unnatural Here, I disproved your premise.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:19:48 2020 No.15694319 >>15694308 Animals don't let their junk swing around. They have their own clothes (fur) and often retract their genitals up into their bodies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:20:26 2020 No.15694321 >>15694308 Clothes are natural, we don't have enough hair to protect us from the coldness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:20:36 2020 No.15694322 File: 24 KB, 641x404, ee2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You're right, it's only natural to rape as one pleases

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:21:17 2020 No.15694326 >>15694308 That's what they did all around the world before northern Euros settled and brought clothing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:22:11 2020 No.15694330 >>15694321 In that case nothing is unnatural because humans are part of nature, so everything they do is natural

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:22:15 2020 No.15694331 >>15694308 strange that's the first thing you thought of

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:23:12 2020 No.15694335 >>15694331 I was thinking of an extreme example so my point is as obvious as possible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:23:24 2020 No.15694336 >>15694301 What makes something unnatural? is it that which is not in enviornemnt of evolution? in that case, go anprim. Otherwise it can be somewhat arbitrary of what is natural. what is natural to one age is not in another.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:26:08 2020 No.15694346 >>15694330 No, you just made a dumb comparison.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:27:11 2020 No.15694350 >>15694336 I don't know, statistics and anthropological research I suppose.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:31:36 2020 No.15694365

>>15694350
What do you mean? as an abstraction i can understand the sensation, but if wwe are speaking technically, everything from nature (ie us and our sentience and creations) is natural by definition. the idea of artificial is an anthrocentric distinction. However, I can interprete it asconstructs which inhibit our natural wants. But then you have to classify wants. If its full exeriencial fullfillment, that is different from plain utilitarianism, or you can go for egalitarianism which i do not believe is fully natural in that sense. You could also go the egoist routw, or another.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 00:34:39 2020 No.15694381 >>15694365 For example, saying that if 99% of known human cultures use clothes, it's a natural thing for humans to use clothes. Because everybody needs them. Or saying that heterosexual sex is natural as our body is designed for that.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:38:09 2020 No.15694713
File: 788 KB, 985x644, A_Smile_of_Betrayal.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15694301
>When did the "appeal to nature" become a fallacy?
When was "nature" ever a distinct thing? Why is living any more natural than dying? Does nature not kill things? How else could they die? If you go to the left, that's natural, and if you go to the right, that too; nature has no meaning, and I mean that in every sense of the phrase.

People's understanding of natural evolution is just a cross section of its reality. It's taught as an individualist, reproductive thing. But evolution does not care for the individual necessarily. Suppose we have two species competing for resources, one of which has the lifespan of a day, the other the lifespan of an eternity. There's no way the latter one survives. How many do you see, compared to say, flies? A fly dies in two days, and such is what it eats; something that lived forever would have to kill its own for supply, and so that species dies. Nature chose for the individual, what was the shorter thing. Nature is not unintelligent but yes, it's a fallacy to rely on the thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:40:13 2020 No.15694721 >>15694301 Murder is the most natural thing in the world, right? How dare anyone try to impose laws against it!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:41:16 2020 No.15694726 >>15694301 Reminder that the concept of logical fallacies is a gate keeping mechanism created by rhetoricians that gives an obscurantist framework to argumentation in order to prevent the layman (or the uninitiated) from participating in open debate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:42:27 2020 No.15694735 >>15694726 >formatting your complaints into a bulleted list is obstructing It's only that it's a dated thing taught in low brow settings

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:42:31 2020 No.15694736 >>15694301 >When did the "appeal to nature" become a fallacy? It's always been a fallacy. You can't logically derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:43:18 2020 No.15694737 >>15694308 This wouldn't be unnatural, had we abided by nature from the start.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:43:27 2020 No.15694738 >>15694346 Give an example of something unnatural then.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:49:32 2020 No.15694762

>>15694735
Stealthily implementing an arbitrary and wholly unfounded ruleset to apply to what is supposed to be "free and open debate" is obscurantist. The prohibition of "logical fallacies" is malicious and only benefits rhetoricians by forcing the layman to abandon deductive reasoning and common sense.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:52:07 2020 No.15694772 >>15694330 Literally true by the way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:53:13 2020 No.15694778 >>15694762 You mean obstructionist in that it might stops people from speaking? The same goes for brain surgeons needing a degree. You could use a couple more quotations around the words """common sense."""

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:56:01 2020 No.15694785 >>15694301 The fallacy is assuming something is correct or good just because it's found in nature. Snake venom is natural, doesn't mean it's good for you.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:57:08 2020 No.15694791

>>15694778
>You mean obstructionist in that it might stops people from speaking?
I mean obscurantist in the only way that the word obscurantist can be used. It has a static definition. Deliberately preventing the facts or full details of a subject from becoming known.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 01:58:46 2020 No.15694800 >>15694791 >It has a static definition. Uh well I think it's very obstructionist of you to think this definition always applies and that you just should let everyone jabber either way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:00:23 2020 No.15694807 >>15694800 >keeps saying obstructionist Learn to fucking read midwit. O b s c u r a n t i s t.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:01:29 2020 No.15694811 >>15694807 Like it even matters? It's some word yoi're using your own way and context shows this. I could write gobbelygook, it's a variable name.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:03:16 2020 No.15694817 >>15694811 I am not using this word in any other way than it is defined you moron.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:05:23 2020 No.15694830

>>15694817
No, you're citing how it's defined to defend an entirely alternate use of it, hence my misreading in the first place. You don't want it to get in the way of some "common sense" you have, which is just some set of assumptions I'm sure you like having.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:08:06 2020 No.15694838 >>15694830 Obscurantism NOUN mass noun The practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known. Oxford You are an illiterate moron.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:08:46 2020 No.15694841 >>15694838 That's what the dictionary, not your other posts, write.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:09:56 2020 No.15694844 >be me >open thread >read replies >close thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:10:15 2020 No.15694846 >>15694841 See >>15694791 >Deliberately preventing the facts or full details of a subject from becoming known.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:11:25 2020 No.15694855 >why would someone want a big list of fallacys and what they mean also let me post something out of a dictionary

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:12:26 2020 No.15694859

>>15694762
You can't ever debate anyone or converse w them if you can't read past the 'fallacies'. On some level everyone commits a logical fallacy because of epistemic uncertainty. It's an arbitrary rule list and if the point of debate is to not be exclusive but to explore ideas then it's a ridiculous layer

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:13:45 2020 No.15694861

>>15694846
Yeah, something copied out of a dictionary. But your words when you use them aren't the same as when you defend. Your point was a reduction of layman access to speaking, the obstruction of this thing. Now that this has been called out, your are reeling your misused word back into the sand.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:17:29 2020 No.15694879 Because you don't necessarily derive an ought from an is. So appealing to nature to justify normative statements can be a fallacy.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:27:42 2020 No.15694926

>>15694861
You're fucking stupid. You are such a fucking moron it's almost unbelievable. If your head were lodged any further up your ass you'd be coughing up hair. The concept of logical fallacies is obscurantist because, as stated before, it forces the layman to abandon deductive reasoning, therefore, deliberately preventing the full details of a subject from being known. This, in turn, works as a gatekeeping mechanism, that intimidates the layman from even participating in the first place. I'm done talking to you. Don't bother replying. Any further discourse from your part would only prove that you are incapable of grasping any of these concepts.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:29:35 2020 No.15694933

>>15694926
Yeah, perhaps concept like holding your own bait and throwing the fishing pole in the sea, which I deliberately alluded to in the post to which you're replying. It almost sounds like you're getting pretty sick of that lay attitude you're defending, huh anon?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 02:35:48 2020 No.15694961 File: 511 KB, 1364x1600, David-Hume-oil-canvas-Allan-Ramsay-Scottish-1766.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15694301 hume

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 03:15:57 2020 No.15695146 >>15694926 My friend, I think you mean inductive reasoning. I'm not the guy you're replying to by the way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 03:21:41 2020 No.15695169 >>15695146 Both can apply.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 03:37:10 2020 No.15695229 >>15694738 Haha, we are still waiting anon

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 03:39:57 2020 No.15695237 >>15694301 Rousseau was just coping because Locke was right and his silly french fantasies were never close to correct, simple as

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 03:55:41 2020 No.15695297

>>15694321
'coldness' doesn't apply to most of the world most of the time especially if you aren't accustomed to wearing clothes. only reason why half the world isn't naked or half naked is european colonialism.

furthermore, unfamiliarity and fear of nakedness, particularly among the same gender, is only something of the past 3-4 decades and doesn't apply in most countries.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:03:07 2020 No.15695326 >>15694738 Religion. It's the only thing that separates us from animals.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:04:46 2020 No.15695332 >>15695326 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals#Funeral_rites_in_animals Next.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:05:47 2020 No.15695341 >>15695332 Then they are not mere animals, simple as that

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:09:15 2020 No.15695358

>>15694738
Nobody can do this and what you said previously is correct. To say something is unnatural is to say it's outside of causality. Nobody dare say God is outside causality. Spinoza's view on God is nature/being and that's the only way it makes any sense.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:12:07 2020 No.15695369

>>15694859
>It's an arbitrary rule list and if the point of debate is to not be exclusive but to explore ideas then it's a ridiculous layer
Debates are 100% spectacle and sophistry and the whole point of a debate is to make your opponent look like a bigger idiot than you to the audience. Since debates are thought of as discussions to be "won", it precludes all good faith in argument and legitimately learning and understanding opposing viewpoints.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:14:07 2020 No.15695378 >>15694738 shopping malls and insurance

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:18:04 2020 No.15695394 >>15694301 Literally everything is natural if it exists. The fallacy is equating what your ideology defines natural and excluding all the rest.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:18:44 2020 No.15695397 >>15694738 natural rights

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:20:59 2020 No.15695409

>>15695341
They are and so are you. God didn't touch your brain and make you bury jewelry with your dead grandma. So self aggrandizing and delusional to think there's a ranking of animals. That viewpoint leads to exploitation of the "lesser" as a birthright. It's the cause of most of our problems as a species. It'll be obvious how superior we are after we annihilate ourselves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:24:41 2020 No.15695428 >>15695341 >look at me mom, I'm moving the goalposts!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 04:29:48 2020 No.15695454 >>15694330 This. You have to appeal to specific paradigms of nature (e.g. adpative vs. maladaptive) if you want to use nature as a grounds for informing behaviour.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 05:09:08 2020 No.15695653 You shouldn’t worry too much about fallacies. Citing those outside of strict syllogistic discussions is the hallmark of a pseud.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 06:30:30 2020 No.15695991

The concept of a fallacious argument is almost useless. Teaching it to university students is extremely counterproductive. Most so-called fallacious argument forms actually have a great many reasonable instances. Even the “most egregious” fallacies, like affirming the consequent, are actually basically just good reasoning.

Likewise, the unnaturalness of some act (or whatever) is definitely defensible evidence that one should not perform it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 06:49:07 2020 No.15696079 >>15694301 I agree, this kind of thinking was implemented by anti fascism due to the fact of fascism using a 'nature' argument to justify the superiority of a race or nation.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 07:00:05 2020 No.15696126

>>15694301
The "that's unnatural" argument only works within the Christian or theistic worldview, where Nature isn't just "the world" but refers to the divine order of things as God intended.

So when someone in the 15th century said "homosexuality is unnatural" you couldn't refute them by pointing to gay frogs, because what they meant was that the behavior is deviant for humans and not intended by the Creator.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 07:34:22 2020 No.15696241

>>15696126
According to Aristotle, humans have a characteristic function. This idea forms the basis for secular approaches to ethics that are extremely popular even to this day, so I don't see why a theistic worldview is needed in order to underwrite arguments from unnaturalness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 07:38:32 2020 No.15696258 >>15694738 Liberalism

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 07:43:57 2020 No.15696289

>>15696241
That's the problem of going from an 'is' to an 'ought '.

Even if humans have various functions it doesn't mean we 'ought' to be bound by them as duties. Characteristic functions don't come with 'thou shalts' attached to them. In a Godless world of just matter bumping into matter there is no ultimate end or intention behind anything. So it's not an argument at all and misses the point. An atheist appealing to nature to make a moral argument is just confused.

The natural vs unnatural argument only makes sense if man has an ultimate purpose to follow, as decreed by God. Where 'nature' is just another word for God's will.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 07:44:55 2020 No.15696295 >>15695991 some of them really are a problem and are very common. Strawmanning for example. You don't actually need the term though, you can just say 'that wasn't my argument, it was this'.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 07:50:40 2020 No.15696321

>>15696289
Aristotle's idea is something like this.

What is the characteristic function of a knife? To cut. From this it obviously follows that a good knife is a knife that cuts well. That is, a good knife is a knife that performs its characteristic function well.

So it is with humans. Whatever our characteristic function, a good person is a person who fulfills that function. So, to the extent that acting unnaturally involves deviating from that function, one thereby deviates from the good life.

Now, you might want to deny that we can have a characteristic function in the first place in the absence of God, but the argument from functions to the problem with unnaturalness is pretty compelling.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 07:54:19 2020 No.15696336

>>15696295
There are bad arguments, no doubt. What I remain unconvinced of is that there are useful and general ways to categorise these bad arguments, so that, say, we can check if an argument has a certain "fallacious" form and, if it does, legitimately dismiss it on those grounds.

You might be right that there are a few such forms, but I doubt there'll be many, and even those that doe exist are likely to be so specific and rare that teaching/learning them is a waste of time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 08:08:33 2020 No.15696401 Different people usually have differing opinion what is natural. Usually appeal to nature is someone thinking his conception of nature is universal.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 08:14:40 2020 No.15696432 >>15696401 >People have different conceptions of what is right, so saying that people should do what is right is retarded Hmm not buying it chief

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 08:23:32 2020 No.15696480

>>15696289
There was a big thread on this the other day where some anons pretty convincingly argued that you can go from an 'is' to an 'ought', at least in the sense that you can validly derive some 'is' statements from some 'ought' statements. But maybe you had another sense in mind.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 08:24:13 2020 No.15696486 >>15695369 Nah it's just a conversation with some pre accepted criticism

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 08:55:35 2020 No.15696608 >>15696432 >so saying that people should do what is right is retarded No, it means why something is right must be explained, and not say right is right because its right. Its circular logic like nature is right because nature is right.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 08:59:07 2020 No.15696626 >>15694301 it became a fallacy when the NSDAP lost the war.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 09:05:16 2020 No.15696650

>>15696321
A nuke is also good at blowing up people, but ought we nuke people? It's not clear just because something HAS a function that we SHOULD practice it or go against it.

A man can have sex with a donkey, the geometry all works out, ought he do it? A woman can have an abortion, ought she? You don't get "'oughts'' from ''is'' , functions don't necessitate any moral imperative. That's why a non-theist can't appeal to nature for moral guidance.

>>15696480
Well none of the great philosophers have done it, so I doubt a few anons on /lit/ managed to do it. Maybe they convinced you because you couldn't see their inconsistencies.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 09:09:36 2020 No.15696669

>>15696321
>one thereby deviates from the good life.
Good by what standard? Good to what end? This is an additional problem beyond the is-ought problem.

Without God the metrics of good and bad lose their focal point, lose their objectivity, and man becomes the measure and arbiter of the good life and bad life. What is good for the capitalist is not good for the commie. What is good for the trans-humanist is not good for the primitivist. All these things fall into relativity...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 09:10:43 2020 No.15696673 >>15694319 this might be the stupidest thing I have ever read on /lit/

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 09:14:38 2020 No.15696689

>>15696650
>A nuke is also good at blowing up people, but ought we nuke people? It's not clear just because something HAS a function that we SHOULD practice it or go against it.
The function of a nuke is to violently explode, so a good nuke is a nuke that does this well. Nothing at all follows from this about how we should use nukes, and I'm not sure why you think it does. Aristotle was a smart guy; maybe let's not dismiss his ideas so blithely.

>Well none of the great philosophers have done it, so I doubt a few anons on /lit/ managed to do it. Maybe they convinced you because you couldn't see their inconsistencies.
The argument they were discussing is due to one of the most important logicians of the later 20th Century, A. N. Prior. So maybe you're not as familiar with the relevant literature as you think.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 09:16:33 2020 No.15696698

>>15694330
That is a problem with trying to ascertain what is "unnatural" because it requires someone beyond outside of the world and having a "natural" humanity to compare us with, i.e. the "natural" humanity created X; the "unnatural" humanity created Y.

However, it does come down to tautology, as you point out.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 09:17:34 2020 No.15696705

>>15696669
>Good by what standard?
?? This is explained in the post...

Just as a good knife is a knife that cuts well, a good person is a person who executes the characteristic function of a human being, i.e. lives a good life. I haven't yet said what that function is, but your confusion is antecedent to this issue.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 09:50:42 2020 No.15696893 >>15695991 >Even the “most egregious” fallacies, like affirming the consequent, are actually basically just good reasoning. Right. Same goes for denying the antecedent. Ad hominems are also often perfectly reasonable.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 09:51:35 2020 No.15696900

>>15696689
>The function of a nuke is to violently explode, so a good nuke is a nuke that does this well. Nothing at all follows from this about how we should use nukes
That's my point. It doesn't follow that because X has function Y that it ''should'' be used for that.

Likewise, the fact that a human has function Y doesn't mean we ''ought'' to do function Y.

Person X (rapist) is good at function Y (raping), ought he rape? Nature has endowed him with the strength to beat up all women and the desire to rape and the IQ to plot his attacks effectively. Ought he rape? He is good at raping. Ought he do it?

You can't go from is to ought, in a worldview devoid of God.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 09:52:39 2020 No.15696903

>>15696705
>a good person is a person who executes the characteristic function of a human being
This isn't saying anything because it lacks content and specificity, you haven't defined what that good life is. You aren't saying anything yet, because you know when you do it will be baseless. Go and define your terms and be specific.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 10:13:57 2020 No.15697026 >>15696900 You must be arguing with someone else, because none of your points engage with anything I or Aristotle have said.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 10:20:39 2020 No.15697063

>>15696903
It's saying enough to show how acting unnaturally could make one a bad person even if God doesn't exist, which is all I was aiming at.

But for interest's sake, Aristotle thought the function of a human being was rational activity, and that performing this function well (i.e. in accordance with virtue) was to live well.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 10:34:37 2020 No.15697141

>>15697026
The argument of unnaturalness is normative, it's making a moral injunction, it depends on making a jump from a fact (is) to a rule (ought). This jump can't be made via reason, there's no basis for it, as the examples I illustrated show.

>>15697063
>It's saying enough to show how acting unnaturally could make one a bad person even if God doesn't exist
This presupposes a standard of values that is beyond observable facts, beyond what ''is''.
You haven't shown how this leap can be justified.

>But for interest's sake, Aristotle thought the function of a human being was rational activity, and that performing this function well (i.e. in accordance with virtue) was to live well.
Three problems there.
First the is-ought problem. [Just because man has function Y, doesn't mean he should pursue it.]
Second is the grounding problem. What is virtue grounded in? Virtue basically means "morality" here, what is morality in a Godless world?
Third is the subordination problem. Why subordinate rationality to virtue, why not to pleasure as the hedonists would prefer?

Also rationality doesn't provide purpose or end in itself, a rational gay dictator will have very different ends than a rational islamic farmer. Who is to say what is natural and unnatural to them?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 11:15:50 2020 No.15697366 >>15694308 >Cherry picking fallacy

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 11:17:45 2020 No.15697376 >>15694726 No, it's just a guideline to remain logical because humans tend to be illogical. It requires a lot of training to actually not sound like a retard

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 11:32:31 2020 No.15697476

>>15697141
I'm not the guy you were arguing with, but,
> it depends on making a jump from a fact (is) to a rule (ought). This jump can't be made via reason, there's no basis for it, as the examples I illustrated show.
This is a position elaborated by Hume, but it was in fact not the position of the majority of philosophers prior to him.
>You haven't shown how this leap can be justified.
He wasn't able to go further, because you didn't understand the very first part of what he said. Without the first, most basic understanding of Aristotle's system, you would have been unable to follow any of the rest.
>Person X (rapist) is good at function Y (raping), ought he rape? Nature has endowed him with the strength to beat up all women and the desire to rape and the IQ to plot his attacks effectively. Ought he rape? He is good at raping. Ought he do it?
This is a strawman. The function of a human being, in the Aristotelian system, is not to rape. In fact, rape is a perversion of human behavior in that system. The fact that a person has the ability to go against their nature does not mean that they should, or that their being skilled at doing so means that it would be virtuous for them to do so. In any case, nobody said that human beings exist to rape, so I'm not sure why you would say this.

You are intelligent, but you have not read enough to be engaging in this conversation. If you want to read the original source for Aristotle's moral system, check out the Nicomachean Ethics. The Eudemian Ethics also exists, but it has been ignored and unknown for much of history. If you want a presentation of the development of the problem discussed in this thread, and the arguments for both sides of it, check out Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue.
There are good reasons why someone might think that we can derive an ought from an is, but, like every single other philosophical system, there is no way to prove it on a fundamental level. You would have to accept the axioms of the new system, just as you accept the axioms of post-Enlightenment rationality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 11:34:12 2020 No.15697486 >>15694319 So if you are hairy enough, you can do that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 11:35:25 2020 No.15697491 >>15697366 >red herring fallacy fallacy

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 11:36:33 2020 No.15697498

>>15697141
The knife example shows that you can make inferences about what a good knife is once you know the function of a knife. Same goes for human beings. And to the extent that you ought be a good human being, I guess you can infer oughts from facts about functions.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 11:52:47 2020 No.15697603

>>15697476
>This is a strawman. The function of a human being, in the Aristotelian system, is not to rape.
The function he cherry picks is arbitrary and prioritizing it above other functions is also arbitrary. The point is whatever 'function' he selects as man's primary function is going to suffer from the is-ought problem. Furthermore whatever he thinks is 'virtuous' will suffer from the grounding problem.

Aristotle has no argument for how to go from an is to an ought. I'm not sure why you keep referring to him as an authority on this problem. He makes just as many irrational leaps of logic as the Epicurean or Evolutionists might. Man is a reproductive being, evolution created man as such, therefore man ought to prioritize all activity around reproduction?

If you think he has a good argument, lay it out.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 12:01:27 2020 No.15697691 >>15697498 >And to the extent that you ought be a good human being, I guess you can infer oughts from facts about functions. 1. How do you know what is good, what's the standard? 2. Why ought I follow that standard instead of another?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 12:04:01 2020 No.15697718 >>15694330 bazinga

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 12:05:48 2020 No.15697732 >>15694726 >obscurantist framework OH THE IRONY

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 12:22:37 2020 No.15697868

>>15697603
>>1569714
You're going too deep. It's even easier.
The naturalists who appeal to nature and ignore God can't even answer the question: ''ought man be?''

Man is. Yes.
But ought he be? Ought he continue? Why not end mankind? Neither nature nor reason have the answer.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 12:27:17 2020 No.15697912

>>15697603
Aristotle did not choose one function. I suggest you go and read him yourself. I do not think even a single person competent enough in the discipline to lay out his massive and influential system of ethics is browsing this board. I certainly am not such an authority.

In any case, you must go read the sources I posted. Then come back and we can have a conversation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 12:31:20 2020 No.15697944 File: 158 KB, 320x371, freg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15697912 Whatever.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 12:48:51 2020 No.15698077

>>15697603
There are no 'oughts', in a concrete sense. An 'ought' is just a pragmatic concept — a social technology for regulating collective behaviour without resorting to ineffective (for the masses) exhaustive reasoning. There is really only the 'is', and all ostensible 'oughts' can be traced back to anticipated outcomes of 'is'.

>>15697868
Because it's a dumb question. Reason does not precede nature... You could not ask the question if you did not exist. So, where is the sense in supposing that existence and/or life must have a reason? You exist, and you don't need a reason or justification for that (and there is none).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 12:54:51 2020 No.15698118 File: 8 KB, 320x187, ht.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15697732 Yep, it's so thick one needs a chainsaw to cut through it

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 12:56:02 2020 No.15698132

>>15698077
>There are no 'oughts', in a concrete sense.
That's a point against the naturalists who appeal to nature for moral claims or human rights. It's baseless in their worldview.

>Reason does not precede nature... You could not ask the question if you did not exist.
I could not fire a gun if it did not exist. But they do exist and the question arises. You aren't saying anything.

>You exist, and you don't need a reason or justification for that (and there is none).
Without a reason to exist you can't create a system of ethics, and all laws become arbitrary whims of the mob, so the anons appealing to Aristotle are just wasting time.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 13:23:26 2020 No.15698367

>>15698132
>It's baseless in their worldview.
Not at all, you simply have a fundamentally different notion of what 'morality' is in the first place. For a naturalist who sees morality as an adapative social strategy, the only purpose of morality can be to confer survival/reproductive advantages to a given collective... That is all the basis necessary, and while the impulse to seek a deeper provenance demonstrates an impressive capacity for relfective thought, it doesn't really constitute a sensible question.

>I could not fire a gun
Terrible attempt at analogy. There is no equivalence between firing a gun and seeking reasons that precede reasoning agents; it's more like expecting to find bullets before firearms were invented.

>can't create a system of ethics
See above. You're projecting your misunderstanding of what ethics are.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 13:28:19 2020 No.15698415

>>15697376
>Remain logical
Yikes nigger, classical logic itself is not the ne plus ultra of rationality far from it. Classical logic is a really recent invention which was only a stepping stone for more important results. LEM is a joke and intuitionistic logic has far more important implications than FOL and its extensions.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 13:38:34 2020 No.15698508

>>15698367
>For a naturalist who sees morality as an adapative social strategy
The naturalist who sees morality as simply an adaptive social strategy is not doing ethics and is not concerned with what is actually good or evil; he's doing legalism or eugenics or something else.

>the only purpose of morality can be to confer survival/reproductive advantages to a given collective...

Again arbitrary. You jumped from an "is" (reproduction exists) to an "ought" (we ought to privilege reproduction). Baseless, like I said here >>15696669
"Without God the metrics of good and bad lose their focal point, lose their objectivity, and man becomes the measure and arbiter of the good life and bad life. What is good for the capitalist is not good for the commie. What is good for the trans-humanist is not good for the primitivist. All these things fall into relativity..."

>You're projecting your misunderstanding of what ethics are.
No you're confusing morality which is concerned with timeless objective truths with mere legalism or group preference, which are relative and subject to change, typical for the naturalist who has an incoherent worldview.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 13:41:13 2020 No.15698541 >>15697376 >guideline to remain logical It does the complete opposite.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 13:46:31 2020 No.15698599

>>15697732
>>15698118
>struggle to grasp basic English language
>duurrr ur also obscurantist muh irony
That statement made perfect sense and anyone with even a moderate understanding of the English language could understand it. Nothing about it would classify it as obscurantist. I'm sorry you don't know your big boy words yet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 13:48:12 2020 No.15698614 >>15694308 kindergartens are unnatural

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:03:33 2020 No.15698757

>>15694301
Because nothing in the physical universe is “unnatural”. Everything piece of matter and energy that exists is a part of nature, therefore, everything that exists is natural. When pearl-clutchers and conservatives declare something to be “unnatural” all they’re doing is declaring their distaste for it without having to actually make a case against it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:06:34 2020 No.15698786 >>15697691 Why ought you be good rather than not? Seriously?

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:08:54 2020 No.15698810

>>15698757
This is such a pseud take. Every time this comes up. An appeal to nature, is an appeal to primordial nature. Should be obvious and taken for granted. When you take this midwit position of "everything is nature" you do so only to try to stroke your ego.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:19:25 2020 No.15698906 >>15695394 This is the correct answer.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:24:41 2020 No.15698962

>>15698508
>The naturalist who sees morality as simply an adaptive social strategy is not doing ethics
That's simply your bare assertion. The basic definition of 'ethics' does not prohibit an evolutionary-strategy provenance.

>You jumped from an "is" (reproduction exists) to an "ought" (we ought to privilege reproduction).
Not at all, as I don't believe there are 'oughts' in the same sense that you do. Ultimately there is only the 'is'. As much as you may deny it, any notion of an 'ought' you have has been informed by (and is entirely abstracted from) the 'is' of your experience. Man is the arbiter, but we do not surrender objectivity because the adaptive/maldaptive standard can be used to empirically contrast those various ideologies. Reproduction is privileged because without it, value systems cannot propogate (it is more fundamental than values).

>No you're confusing morality which is concerned with timeless objective truths
This is just mystic-babble. You can't just declare it so and consider that declaration a logical demonstration. If you were actually the one with a coherent worldview, you wouldn't need to resort to such rhetorical posturing.

>>15698599
How exactly would abdicating from logical standards result in more precise argumentation?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:26:56 2020 No.15698991 >>15698962 >How exactly would abdicating from logical standards result in more precise argumentation? This has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:27:07 2020 No.15698992 >>15698757 I essentially agree, but by the same token liberals clutch their blankies and selectively ignore what is natural (and more importantly, what is adaptive) when it suits them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:28:28 2020 No.15699003 >>15698991 Connect the dots, retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:29:47 2020 No.15699013 >>15699003 There are no dots to connect faggot. For someone who loves his fucking fallacies so much you sure do love to beg the question.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:32:36 2020 No.15699050

>>15696321
>>15696689
Knives and nukes are considered good by humans when and because they are useful to humans. In a vacuum however these things are just chunks of matter with no purpose and no inherent “goodness”. If there were no humans around to consider things to be “good” then nothing would be. Without anything to consider humans to be good when performing a function (i.e. God), there is no process through which you can assign “good” functions to humans. Assuming we’re in a vacuum, we’re just hunks of matter too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:33:37 2020 No.15699056 >>15699013 I asked the pertinent question, and you dismissed it out of hand. You're either terminally stupid, baiting or deflecting — and in any case a sack of shit.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:36:29 2020 No.15699093

>>15699056
It is completely impertinent. It also implies that I take a stance against "logical standards" (whatever the fuck that is), and that I am in favor of "more precise argumentation", which I have no advocated for in any posts. You are disingenuous.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:40:00 2020 No.15699130 >>15698992 >selectively ignore what is natural Please read my post again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:43:51 2020 No.15699168 >>15698810 >An appeal to nature, is an appeal to primordial nature. Elaborate on what you mean by this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:48:06 2020 No.15699210 >>15695358 I'm sure a god can fudge the laws of logic, being what he is

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:51:27 2020 No.15699245

>>15699168
When someone "appeals to nature" they are referencing the original, primordial state of whatever subject they are talking about. Given for example, the argument of how man should live, an appeal to nature would be to advocate for the life of primordial man, not the advocacy for the life of a man from, lets say, the Baroque era or the Victorian era. The type of rebuttal cited above ("everything is from nature"), is actually misinterpreting the argument by the other party.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 14:58:21 2020 No.15699307 >>15699245 Ah, I see. That argument seems pretty stupid as well.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:00:14 2020 No.15699326

>>15698415
Lol he talks informally of remaining logical and you immediately jump in with some prepared but utterly irrelevant screed that you’ve obviously been itching to belch up on some poor unsuspecting nonexpert who couldn’t have possibly forseen how his apparently innocuous remark would tick off /lit/‘s resident logician/guy who’s taken an undergrad course on paradoxes.

Yikes indeed, nigger

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:02:56 2020 No.15699347

>>15699307
Doesn't really matter. The point is, this response, "everything is from nature", misinterprets the argument. This argument is a complete copypasta tier meme that people picked up from pseuds who've never really come to give it a second thought.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:02:58 2020 No.15699348 >>15699050 Whether or not knives are good has little to do with whether there are good knives in the sense connected to well-executed functions. Your post focuses on the former issue whereas Aristotle is concerned with the latter.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:09:08 2020 No.15699402

>>15699347
I reject the idea that this is a misinterpretation of the appeal to nature fallacy. When I press traditionalists on why things like homosexuality are bad they almost always appeal to some kind of grand natural order from which things can deviate from, its pretty clear they see certain things as “unnatural” in a non-primordial sense. You could be correct but as far as I’m concerned, I’m considering this a distinction without a difference.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:12:39 2020 No.15699443 >>15694738 homosexuality

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:14:33 2020 No.15699464 >>15699348 But that argument still doesn’t take into account the fact that no clear function has been assigned to humans, at least as far as we’re aware of. And even if one had been, why would we be obligated to care about it?

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:17:32 2020 No.15699490

>>15699464
Aristotle thinks he’s identified the characteristic function of humans.

And we should care to the extent that we should care about being a good human.

And to bring it back to the original discussion, we should likewise care about doing unnatural things to the extent that they are deviations from performing our function well, which presumably they often will be.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:23:56 2020 No.15699551

>>15699402
These people could be correct if they appealed to nature properly but it seems that the point is being lost between the both of you because of difference in understandings of concepts. If you're speaking of Traditionalists in the vein of Indo-European traditionalists, like Evola, they base their "tradition" on a combination of metaphysical ideals, ancient universally propagated moral concepts, and in some ways primordial man's existence. In that case they are making reference that homosexuality in ancient times was for the most part, in Indo-European culture, regarded as unhealthy, unproductive, or otherwise disadvantageous to the tribe. In a solely primordial sense though homosexuality in the way that it currently exists actually would be considered "unnatural".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:27:00 2020 No.15699577 >>15694301 this pic is so freaking funny to me and i don't know why

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:38:05 2020 No.15699697 >>15699443 What about those gay penguins?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:41:16 2020 No.15699722 >>15699697 It doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in nature, but that it is the unnatural mode of having sex. Your anus is not ready for having sex, it doesn't have a natural lubricant like the vagina has, it bleeds easily, hurts, etc.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:45:13 2020 No.15699763 >>15699130 Please read mine. Again.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:52:42 2020 No.15699826

>>15699093
>Obscurantism (/ɒbˈskjʊərənˌtJzəm, əb-/ and /ˌɒbskjʊəˈræntJzəm/)[1][2] is the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise and abstruse manner, often designed to forestall further inquiry and understanding.[3] There are two historical and intellectual denotations of Obscurantism: (1) the deliberate restriction of knowledge—opposition to disseminating knowledge;[a] and (2) deliberate obscurity—a recondite literary or artistic style, characterized by deliberate vagueness.

We are obviously speaking about (2) here, and the whole point of acknowledging logical fallacies is to preserve a rigorous standard of logic in argumentation (instead of falling into the same old failures of logic again and again). This allows us to debate in a more -precise- manner, which is to say in a less -vague- manner. If you don't favour precision in your arguments, then you are an obscurantist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:55:11 2020 No.15699845 >>15699722 >It doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in nature, but that it is the unnatural mode of having sex. dude that makes no sense

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 15:57:38 2020 No.15699867

>>15699464
>clear function has been assigned to humans
Our function is to persist (collectively), everything else proceeds from that... And it is not a 'purpose/reason', because there is none.

>why would we be obligated to care about it?
Obligations are ultimately nothing more than anticipated consequences. If you don't care about the consequence, then you are not obliged.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:01:50 2020 No.15699902 >>15699845 What don't you understand, our body is not ready for having those relationships. Are you fucking retarded? Can you fuck off? If you reply I am not going to reply to you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:04:19 2020 No.15699924 >>15699722 >being afraid of things which hurt What about fights/war/other dangers?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:04:32 2020 No.15699928 >>15699845 >happens in nature >that doesn't mean it isn't unnatural Welcome to /lit/ 2020, only the biggest brains post here.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:14:38 2020 No.15700022

>>15699928
Yes fucking faggot, it doesn't mean it is the specified mode which nature created for having sex. Anomalies that happen in nature doesn't create a rule of what is natural or not. You fucking nigger.
>>15699924
It's not bad because it hurts, it hurts because it's bad, moron. You fucking nigger. If you use your ear for having sex, of course, it's going to hurt, because your ear is not meant to be designed for having sexual relationships. Nature is shouting to your face that you are doing something wrong by being a sodomite, but you have so much cum in your fucking brain that you cannot comprehend her warnings.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:21:51 2020 No.15700099

>>15700022
Nature isn't some conscious entity that specifies intention plenty of animals have sex with the dead for example, is that a "specified mode which nature created for having sex"? Lmao, your lack of an argument is adorable in its caveated caveats and ever moving goalposts. Likewise it's cute seeing you try and call it anomalous when homosexuality exists across countless animal species in nature.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:22:53 2020 No.15700111

>>15700022
>It's not bad because it hurts, it hurts because it's bad, moron. You fucking nigger. If you use your ear for having sex, of course, it's going to hurt, because your ear is not meant to be designed for having sexual relationships. Nature is shouting to your face that you are doing something wrong by being a sodomite, but you have so much cum in your fucking brain that you cannot comprehend her warnings.
2 words. Prostate orgasms.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:24:25 2020 No.15700128

>>15700022
>It's not bad because it hurts, it hurts because it's bad, moron. You fucking nigger. If you use your ear for having sex, of course, it's going to hurt, because your ear is not meant to be designed for having sexual relationships.
Hilarious how some virgin is lecturing on what is and isn't the right way to have sex. Vaginal intercourse is regularly painful "in nature", what the fuck are you even talking about retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:25:28 2020 No.15700142 >>15700128 No because rape is unnatural, ignore the fact it occurs frequently in millions of animal species throughout the natural world.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:26:35 2020 No.15700154 >Hurting isn't a natural thing >Dying isn't a natural thing >Suicide doesn't happen in nature oh lordy

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:31:48 2020 No.15700189 >>15695397 lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:34:01 2020 No.15700207 >>15700154 >inb4 "dying is just an anomaly"

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:37:05 2020 No.15700230

>>15700099
>specific intention
There is one and it's called reproduction. All you say is retarded coping.
>>15700111
Yes, I can say also that I receive pleasure from fucking kids, what does that have to say nigger. Of course, inserting something in a channel that is meant for expulsing hurts. I am not inventing the wheel here.
>>15700128
Fucking retarded. You are just retarded man. Nobody said heterosexual relationships might not be pleasurable, but you just had to say it. The vagina has a natural way of lubrication, called vaginal discharge, a mucose which is secreted by the vagina's walls, FOR REDUCING THE PAIN. Your butt doesn't have that because it wasn't meant for having penetrations. Shut up. This thread is cancer, I'm living right now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:38:24 2020 No.15700236 >>15700230 >The vagina has a natural way of lubrication, called vaginal discharge, a mucose which is secreted by the vagina's walls, FOR REDUCING THE PAIN. And other animals have spines on their cocks that cause bleeding

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:41:39 2020 No.15700262 >tfw no praying mantis tradwife time to do the natural thing and commit suicide

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:53:09 2020 No.15700323 >>15700230 >I'm living right now. Living a full life?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 16:55:53 2020 No.15700342 File: 31 KB, 403x397, 1541160788898.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15700262

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 17:19:23 2020 No.15700480 >>15699826 I was using, the more common, primary definition, as you can see in my previous posts here >>15694726 >>15694762 >>15694838 >>15694926. My point still stands. You're grasping at straws here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 17:22:48 2020 No.15700515 >>15699826 I'll also have to add that many, if not most "logical fallacies" are not preventative of failures in logic, and are actively dismissive of logic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 17:34:42 2020 No.15700589 >>15699826 But plenty of good arguments instantiate “fallacious” patterns, so it’s not clear that attention to “fallacies” promotes better reasoning

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 17:44:12 2020 No.15700652 >>15700230 Sorry anon but you got btfo, hate to break it to you. You should just admit it and try to develop further.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 17:44:54 2020 No.15700654

>>15700515
Prime examples? I'm listening, make your argument anon.

>>15700480
Silly. Philosophers are not trying to withold knowledge, they're trying to limit assumptions. That most people can't "into" philosophy would be the case whether or not we had a lexicon of fallacies.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 17:51:28 2020 No.15700703

>>15700654
The concept of "Logical Fallacies" is not reserved to the subject of philosophy. Never mentioned philosophy. Rhetoricians and philosophers are totally different in character.

A prime example of a "logical fallacy" dismissive of logic would be the "slippery slope". Ideals decay over time and are prone to lead to other similar, more radical ideals. Deliberate denial of this can only be attributed to malicious intent.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:13:12 2020 No.15700836

>>15700703
This is stupidity. Do you honestly think that average people give a shit about these supposed 'gatekeeping fallacies' to the extent that they constitute an obscurantist campaign? Absurd. The people who tend to respect logical rigour — considering fallacies consistently and with nuance (most fallacies are cautionary, not absolute) — are philosophically inclined.

The point of 'slippery slope' is not to say that there are no slippery slopes, it's to point out that referencing said concept does not constitute logical demonstration of the specific case. In other words, I can't just point to a separate example of a 'slippery slope' and assume that it applies to the case in question without showing some specific evidence or reasoning to that effect.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:25:19 2020 No.15700923

>>15700836
>This is stupidity. Do you honestly think that average people give a shit about these supposed 'gatekeeping fallacies' to the extent that they constitute an obscurantist campaign? Absurd. The people who tend to respect logical rigour — considering fallacies consistently and with nuance (most fallacies are cautionary, not absolute) — are philosophically inclined.
The people who tend to force the use of logical fallacies on others (who rightfully don't give a shit about them) are not "philosophically inclined" they are the types that need a quick and easy way out of an argument.

>without showing some specific evidence or reasoning to that effect.
This is not something that happens. When arguments are dismissed as a "slippery slope", said arguments are often well founded.

To deny that logical fallacies are nothing but cheap technicalities employed by those who have no respect for open debate would be pathetically naive. When I think of someone who cares about logical fallacies, I don't picture an intellectual, I picture a chimpanzee waiting for an opportunity to fling his shit.

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:26:36 2020 No.15700935

>>15700836
>The point of 'slippery slope' is not to say that there are no slippery slopes, it's to point out that referencing said concept does not constitute logical demonstration of the specific case.
But calling slippery slope arguments fallacious on this basis carries with it an implication that slippery slope reasoning falls short of some standard of rationality. This is a problem because the fact that an argument is not logically valid tells you nothing about whether it’s a good argument or not. If it did, we’d be talking about the fallacy of “providing powerful scientific evidence” and other such absurdities, as scientific evidence never logically entails the conclusion whose truth it is evidence of.

(Not the guy you were replying to btw)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:28:07 2020 No.15700945 Saying "X is a fallacy" is equivalent to saying "X is stupid" - without argumentation it's fully meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:29:09 2020 No.15700950 >>15700923 This is true. Bringing up fallacies definitely signals low status in professional philosophical circles

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:30:57 2020 No.15700961 >>15700945 I hold infinitely more respect for someone who dismisses things as cringe and gay, than for someone who dismisses things as logical fallacies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:39:50 2020 No.15701019 >>15700961 Dismissing things as gay has an ageless basedness about it. Amen, anon

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:41:24 2020 No.15701028 >>15700961 If I see the word cringe in a post i unironically hide it and dont read the rest

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:41:31 2020 No.15701030 >>15700923 Lmao get dunked fgt

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:43:38 2020 No.15701045 >>15701028 cringe

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 18:52:10 2020 No.15701115 >>15701028 based and cringepilled

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 19:00:20 2020 No.15701180

>>15700945
This is why putting arguments into general “bad” categories as the cataloging of fallacies does is such an oversimplification. Some “fallacious” arguments are bad, others are good. I can reasonably affirm the consequent, and I can unreasonably affirm the consequent. These things need to be treated on a case by case basis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:13:03 2020 No.15701716 >thread is just anons who don't know about fallacies thinking they're original for knowing the fallacy-fallacy fallacies point out invalidities, not falsehoods, this is known >all this is probably to dodge discussing the OP/the naturalistic fallacy

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:14:51 2020 No.15701736 >>15701705 these plebs don't even know about the fallacy fallacy fallacy

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:15:51 2020 No.15701747 >>15701716 There’s nothing wrong with deductively invalid arguments

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:18:35 2020 No.15701778 File: 94 KB, 702x701, blamtifa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Time you spend reading each day: Time you spend shitposting on /lit/ each day:

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:20:48 2020 No.15701800 >>15694301 Rape murder and bestiality are all natural but that doesn't make them good.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:23:20 2020 No.15701823 >>15697486 have a micropenis too

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:23:51 2020 No.15701831

>>15699443
>Picks something that's obviously natural
>>15699722
>It doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in nature, but that it is the unnatural mode of having sex.
Anything that happens in nature is by definition natural you fucking retardd go back to /pol/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:24:11 2020 No.15701833 File: 119 KB, 800x555, greek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15701800 1) Murder is not natural, killing is. 2) Rape is natural, ok. 3) Bestiality is natural, ok. What more.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:25:25 2020 No.15701849 >>15701831 >>15699245

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:26:52 2020 No.15701858 >>15701831 >Anything that happens in nature is by definition natural >pseuds still spouting this shit verbatim see >>15698810

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:35:49 2020 No.15701911 >>15701858 >see [post where I call someone a name and use the adjective primordial] wow it's nothing

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:37:23 2020 No.15701920 >>15701849 >is actually misinterpreting the argument by the other party. No, it's showing that if you aren't saying nature is everything then you're picking some era arbitrarily.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:38:35 2020 No.15701927 >>15701911 >>15701920 >wow it's nothing

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:39:49 2020 No.15701937 File: 31 KB, 601x508, 2f7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15701911 >wow it's nothing

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:40:33 2020 No.15701942 >>15701747 >wrong Fallacies don't say anything about wrongness either; they talk about validity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:41:41 2020 No.15701952 >>15701937 >literally no reply keep crying and picking new words to defend your unsubstantiated beliefs; you have the brain of a reddit upvoter

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:43:53 2020 No.15701964 >>15701952 mad

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:45:50 2020 No.15701981 >>15701964 Have fun cheering for the trad's Blockbuster, reddit. Who needs validity when you can just think in terms of boo/yay?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:46:32 2020 No.15701986 >>15701981 lool mad

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:47:06 2020 No.15701991 >>15701986 You really want me to stop replying that badly?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:49:13 2020 No.15702004 >>15701991 :^)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:50:40 2020 No.15702017 "appeal" souds like a hybrid of apple and pear.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 20:53:29 2020 No.15702040 File: 103 KB, 1500x750, Anger-1500x750.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15702017 B A S E D A S E D

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 21:01:05 2020 No.15702089 File: 3.75 MB, 487x416, 1592246317976.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15701911 >mfw somebody uses big boy words

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 21:03:48 2020 No.15702117 >>15694301 If the natural way is better then you should be able to argue why, not just whine that it's unnatural. So then, why bring up nature at all? It's an emotional argument, not a rational one. reminder that you typed your post on a computer

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 21:20:32 2020 No.15702231 File: 146 KB, 600x974, 80a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15702089 >yfw somebody uses big boy words

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 21:20:58 2020 No.15702234 >>15694301 testing

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 21:53:10 2020 No.15702418 File: 2.78 MB, 2009x1320, rousseau liar.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15694301

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:00:52 2020 No.15702488

>>15698962
You're proposing that because naturalists have preferences then they ought to reproduce to propogate those preferences. As if those values are inherently worth propagating just because they exist? Lol
You have no basis for privileging reproduction or any value system conjured up by naturalists. You can't even begin to make an argument. The antinatalists definitely disagree, although for different reasons. You just equivocate what morality means, confusing it with group preferences which change with the wind.
So you just proved my point. You deny concrete oughts you also deny concrete morality because you know the materialist can't justify them. Yet you want to blabber about what humans should do (should reproduce because values depend on human reproduction) despite having no basis to make the leap from X exists to we ought to do X. Hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:02:20 2020 No.15702500 >>15702117 In b4 some chucklefuck says that computers are natural

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:03:51 2020 No.15702509 >>15701833 Yes for the atheist he has no way to argue why rape, murder or bestiality are wrong. When he goes to a judge to complain about being robbed or beaten he's being irrational.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:05:35 2020 No.15702516 >>15702509 It is not irrational to complain about being harmed

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:08:51 2020 No.15702539

>>15702516
It is irrational in a world where right and wrong don't actually exist. You might as well complain that trees exist. Being robbed just is. Trees just are. There are no oughts, only what is.

What you want is no better than what the the wants.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:10:55 2020 No.15702553 >>15702539 What the theif* wants

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:12:17 2020 No.15702560 >>15702553 Thief lmao!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:23:28 2020 No.15702631 >>15694308 there is nothing wrong with nudity you fat retard puritan american

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:34:33 2020 No.15702697 File: 31 KB, 378x378, 2462362.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15702500 Computers are natural moron. We came from nature and we made computers so computers exist naturally.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:40:58 2020 No.15702729 File: 99 KB, 1600x900, soyjak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15702697 Don't you get it? We used technology to split the atom so nuclear explosions exist in nature.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:42:58 2020 No.15702742 >>15702539 Your brain is fundamentally broken if you actually think this way

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:44:04 2020 No.15702752 >>15702697 This is a deliberate misreading of what is meant by "natural."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:46:22 2020 No.15702768 >>15702752 Umm... Like, didn't y'all get the memo? Everything is natural sweaty... Read a book for once hun.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:48:30 2020 No.15702781 >>15695326 Religion comes from the spirit, which is not unnatural but supra-natural.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:48:31 2020 No.15702782 >>15694301 nothing is unnatural insofar as everything is part of nature and nothing escapes the realm of possibilities of it. Only a god coul do "unnatural" things

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 22:48:40 2020 No.15702783 >>15702742 That's the logical implication of the naturalist materialist worldview. Yes their brains are broken, they are atheists yet make moral injunctions lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 25 23:03:00 2020 No.15702891 File: 33 KB, 740x724, 606.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15694330 >>15694365 >>15695394 >>15698757 >>15701831 >>15702782

Anonymous Thu Jun 25 23:31:32 2020 No.15703130
File: 26 KB, 1082x172, gwyneth paltrow natural.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The appeal to nature fallacy is specifically targeting the commoner usage of the word 'natural', which to them means stuff like green forests and bubbling brooks etc. Or something like a synonym for 'organic'. If those common idiots understood that everything is natural then there wouldn't need to be a 'appeal to nature' fallacy. Or at least it would be renamed to 'appeal to oganic' instead.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 01:46:44 2020 No.15703995 >>15699245 >the life of primordial man where's the cutoff and why?

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 01:55:27 2020 No.15704055

>>15703995
The turn from hunter gatherer culture to organized agriculture. It is inarguable that this wasn't a complete and total shift in lifestyle and conditions for man, but you will persist in arguing because you aren't asking for clarification purposes. You just want some quick fix ego gratification from arguing with some stranger on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 02:52:38 2020 No.15704290 >>15703995 Adam and Eve after the fall primordial man lost his innocence and direct connection to God

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 03:10:54 2020 No.15704373

>>15700923
>they are the types that need a quick and easy way out of an argument.
Yes, this does happen... Usually when a rhetorican is getting btfoed by a more logically rigorous interlocutor. Such disingenuity is easily identified by the logician, however, so it's not a big deal. There is no common use of fallacies to 'gatekeep' knowledge, as was initially asserted (since as we've established, those who could be tricked tend not to give a shit about them in the first place).

>the fact that an argument is not logically valid tells you nothing about whether it’s a good argument
Here is where you out yourself as a pseud. Logical rigour is the only standard we can appeal to in determining the quality of an argument. We couldn't escape this standard if we wanted to (it fundamentally underlies our facility for reason), and if you're truly skeptical of it then there's no point in trying to debate anything with anyone. You btfo yourself by going on to invoke logic (poorly) to make a case against empiricism. Oblivious.

>>15700945
Ironically you are invoking 'the fallacy fallacy' here, which states that a fallacy being committed does not automatically invalidate the truth of the argument as a whole.

Anyone who understands the fallacies and how to properly invoke them already knows that further demonstration is usually required. Some fallacies are more cautionary, where as others (such as begging the question, strawman) are specific identifications of failures in reasoning.

What I'm seeing here is the anti-fallacy crowd misunderstanding/misapplying fallacies and pointing to their own ignorance as evidence of a problem with these tools.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 03:33:19 2020 No.15704486
File: 1.54 MB, 480x264, Hmmm_RedGiant.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15700950
Because capable philosophers are typically sensitive to making such elementary mistakes of reasoning in the first place.

>>15702509
Why did g*d make you so stupid? The atheist can simply evaluate such behaviours by a standard of adaptivity. Even if isolated incidences of such things aren't necessarily maladaptive, it's very likely that normalizing such behaviours would be (or we wouldn't be prejudiced against them in the first place).

>>15702539
Social strategies (like morality) are also a component of the 'is'. You're an idiot.

>>15702729
nice, I didn't have that one
also:
>what is the sun

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 03:39:20 2020 No.15704512

>>15704486
>Social strategies (like morality) are also a component of the 'is'. You're an idiot.

Oughts are part of the is? Where do you find moral rules embedded in molecules and people? You gotta make an argument not just assert it and ignore everything else lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 03:43:29 2020 No.15704523 >>15694321 Living somewhere where you get excessively hot or cold is unnatural.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 03:44:46 2020 No.15704531
File: 5 KB, 211x239, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15704486
>The atheist can simply evaluate such behaviours by a standard of adaptivity.
You can make eugenics your standard for morality as an atheist but it's just as arbitrary as the commie who makes equality-for-the-working-class his standard for morality and ultimate end.

>Even if isolated incidences of such things aren't necessarily maladaptive

lol, so some instances of incest rape could be moral, depending on how strong the offspring is?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 03:46:36 2020 No.15704539 atheists and naturalists are getting absolutely btfo

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 03:47:06 2020 No.15704545 >>15704373 >the fact that an argument is not logically valid tells you nothing about whether it’s a good argument This wasn't from my comment. Don't know why you attributed it to me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 03:58:41 2020 No.15704614 >>15694301 Awfully transphobic of you

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 04:10:46 2020 No.15704666

>>15702488
No, I'm saying that values can't precede valuing agents in any case. Values have no inherent worth beyond what they can achieve for valuing agents (that's why they exist in the first place, and that is their justification). Anti-natalist values will never become widespread in the long-term, because such people remove themselves (and thus descendants with similar tendencies) from the running. So you see, it isn't about values having any inherent/cosmic 'worth', it's the fact that maladaptive values ultimately lead to the demise of those valuing agents (or their subjugation by agents with more adaptive values). To reproduce is the normal bias — our 'nature' if you will — and deviation from that bias down-regulates itself. No further justification is required (again, we're getting into silly notions of our existence requiring a 'reason').

>you also deny concrete morality
To the contrary, I'm detailing a far more concrete explanation of morality than your intentionally vague mystical notions of such. You're just not happy with that concreteness, because you're psychologically comitted to the notion of cosmic reasons/will.

Look, if believing in some cosmic notion of morality makes you a better person, I don't have any problem with that. However, we're philosophically debating the ontology of morality here, and there is no strong argument for cosmic provenance.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 04:14:14 2020 No.15704687 >>15704545 My apologies, was intended for: >>15700935

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 04:15:22 2020 No.15704699 >>15704539 /thread

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 04:29:45 2020 No.15704763

>>15704512
There are no oughts in that concrete sense. As I noted earlier in the thread, they are a pragmatic conceptual tool for promulgating behavioural regulation in society. They are bascially short-hand for the implicit anticipations of outcomes which underlie them.

>lol, so some instances of incest rape could be moral, depending on how strong the offspring is
Seems unlikely, since incest typically implies major consanguinity (meaning a dysgenic outcome is probable). Also, you can't divorce instances from collective repercussions like the damaging of social trust (that was my point). However, we could imagine an extreme scenario where humanity was in danger of extinction, in which case forced consanguineous reproduction (in the absence of any alternatives) might be adaptive.

I don't think you're mentally equipped for this conversation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 04:30:48 2020 No.15704769 >>15704531 see >>15704763

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 04:37:46 2020 No.15704796 >>15694321 >Phones are natural, we don't have any organic means of communicating over l distance Retard

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 04:48:57 2020 No.15704846

>>15701942
If the categorisation of an argument as a fallacy wasn’t meant to have normative import then this categorisation wouldn’t be used to criticise arguments and the people who make them. The problem with this is that just about the only thing fallacious arguments have in common is that they’re deductively invalid, and this is not a legitimate basis for criticising an argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 04:55:48 2020 No.15704877 >>15704486 >nice, I didn't have that one >also: >what is the sun Everybody look! This guy thinks the sun shines by SPLITTING ATOMS. A rarefied intellect indeed

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 05:04:19 2020 No.15704915

>>15704486
>Because capable philosophers are typically sensitive to making such elementary mistakes of reasoning in the first place.
This can’t be the right explanation. Academic philosophers are extremely reticent to point out that an argument instantiates a so-called “fallacious” form even when it’s being made by another philosophy. If your explanation were right then they’d be willing to point it out in these circumstances because they’re clearly circumstances in which the philosopher making the argument is not appropriately sensitive the the “elementary mistake in reasoning” they’re making. A better explanation is that philosophers realise that “fallacious” arguments can be reasonable and so are unwilling to look like a retarded redditor by attempting to criticise an argument on such a flimsy basis.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 05:13:09 2020 No.15704949

>>15704373
>Logical rigour is the only standard we can appeal to in determining the quality of an argument.
I guess now that you’ve started being rude I can tell you that this is embarrassingly retarded. How educated are you?

Anyway, abductive reasoning is the gold standard in all theoretical disciplines that don’t rely largely on proof (mathematics, logic and parts of computer science are about the only disciplines that do), such as philosophy and the natural sciences. Abduction is not logically valid, but when done right is definitely good reasoning. If logical rigour were the only standard we have to evaluate arguments, then good abductive scientific reasoning is in the same category as ludicrous non-sequiturs—after all, neither kind of reasoning is logically valid. This is absurd, and thus so is your position.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 05:28:26 2020 No.15705005

>>15704763
>There are no oughts in that concrete sense.
>I don't believe in actual morality, I believe in some made up social contracts and eugenics for pragmatic purposes
That's fine. Might makes right, mob rule, utilitarinism. Nazis thought jews and retards were maladaptive for society. Cool philosophy.

That was kind of my point, atheists and naturalists can't have morality, they can only implement relative rules by force and coercion, and then change them around depending on the whims of the mob and it's social contracts.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 06:08:30 2020 No.15705131

>>15704877
No, but I think fission does occur in second-generation (like our sun) and later stars which contain heavier elements. And I'm right. I guess you've also never heard of natural fission 'reactors' (like Gabon). By all means though, continue to cope.

>>15704915
Fair enough, but that basically follows from what I said. If a philosopher is reticent to call fallacy on his colleague in your scenario, it is because he has an expectation that the specific fallacy is not central to their argument or will be resolved upon further explanation. However, if they were debating hacks that regularly commit fallacies and in fact rely upon them (mental gymnastics), I don't think they would be reticent.

>>15704949
Nowhere have I suggested that absolute certainty is a requirement of knowledge and reason. Nonetheless we still assess probabilities via the application of logical rigour (or do you accept all abductively obtained conclusions as equally likely?). Again, you're utilizing (defective) logic to argue against logical standards, which is self-detonating.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 06:15:24 2020 No.15705151 >>15700961 >>15701019 'Fake and gay' will never not be the best way to refuse a retarded discussion that wouldn't ever go anywhere.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 06:17:05 2020 No.15705159

>>15705005
>Nazis thought jews and retards were maladaptive for society.
Anon, I...

The truth is that morality isn't universal. Sure, there's plenty of overlap in the natures of moral agents, but there can also be significant average differences in the natures of divergent populations (and by consequence, in the moral formulas optimal for them).

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that this isn't the case, that divergent populations aren't in moral competition and that morality isn't based upon what works for a given collective, then so be it. Just understand that you haven't expressed a philosophical argument to that effect, only your emotional distaste for mine.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 06:21:10 2020 No.15705172 >>15705131 >No, but I think fission does occur in second-generation (like our sun) and later stars which contain heavier elements AHAHAHA cool post hoc googling bro very impressive

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 06:25:00 2020 No.15705188 >>15694301 Retards can't into common sense because we're no longer part of nature

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 06:26:16 2020 No.15705194

>>15705131
>Nowhere have I suggested that absolute certainty is a requirement of knowledge and reason.
But you did suggest that logical validity was the only standard for evaluating arguments. You seem to have now retreated from that position, and rightly so, but it would be more intellectually honest to acknowledge your earlier mistake.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 06:49:38 2020 No.15705277

>>15705194
I didn't take that anon to be using 'valid' in the strict deductive sense, but rather to be criticizing standards of logic in general. It's quite possible I misunderstood. For my part, I was not suggesting a hard requirement of validity (you'll note that I did not invoke the term myself).

In any event, deductive validity does contribute to assessing the strength of an argument (likelihood), and in the case of rare apodictic truths it is the condition of certainty. Either way the statement I replied to is interpreted, it remains profoundly ignorant.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 07:08:23 2020 No.15705352
File: 301 KB, 647x656, 1572934229553.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15694301
Where do we draw the line? Is highly formalized philosophical argument itself (via computerized network no less) any more 'natural' than transgenderism? It's not a specific enough criteria.

What would be the point in making arguments for various courses of action if we didn't think human artifice can improve upon 'nature'? I suppose you can go all Uncle Ted (and I sympathize), but even there it's a blurry line... How primitive must your shelter be? Will you forego language? If nature led to artifice in the first place, are you not then improving upon that perceived mistake by employing the artifice of complex reasoning?

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 07:50:36 2020 No.15705519

>>15705277
I’m still not convinced. Abductive goodness also contributes to the strength of an argument, but we don’t indict arguments as fallacious just because they fail to be abductively good. That would mean indicting modus ponens!

So I think the original point stands on a charitable interpretation: that an argument fails to be deductively valid valid tells you essentially nothing about whether it’s a good argument or not (after all, it might be abductively strong), in the same sense that an argument’s failure to be abductively strong tells you essentially nothing about whether it’s a good argument or not (after all, it might be deductively valid).

This is why categorising general argument forms as fallacious is basically a waste of time.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 07:57:20 2020 No.15705551

Reality is a product of the mind, your mind's origination is dependent upon itself. Nature itself isn't real, it conforms to what was originally thought into existence. What is real is wisdom, the spark that's imbued into all creation as a reminder of the true self, the only necessary nature is the white light.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 08:18:23 2020 No.15705660 ITT: An overconfident fool behaves as if philosophy began and ended with Hume.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 09:29:20 2020 No.15706063 >>15705660 What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 09:30:25 2020 No.15706068 >>15705551 >the only necessary nature is the white race Fixed it for you

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 09:31:23 2020 No.15706076

>>15705519
The fallacies aren't intended to be wielded as blunt instruments against entire branches of logic, they are checks against specific instances of insufficient reasoning. Again, note the inclusion of 'the fallacy fallacy' in the lexicon.

As to this fixation on logical validity, I think it's quite clear that the standards of logic depend on the kind of knowledge being sought. If you're trying to establish an apodictic truth or abstract proof, then no abductive argument is 'good'. For the remaining vast majority of knowledge, induction/abduction is all we can do. So no, the original point does not stand unless it was specifically referring to judging non-apodictic/non-self referential arguments by decuctive standards (which we can't assume, since it wasn't specified — nor do you specify it here). This attempt at salvage is overly charitable, and only works if you back-pedal from the more general statement it was intended to be (including a purported relevance to the fallacies).

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 09:32:50 2020 No.15706083

>>15695332
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals#Funeral_rites_in_animals

There is no evidence that any non-human animals believe in God or gods, pray, worship, have any notion of metaphysics, create artifacts with ritual significance, or many other behaviours typical of human religion. Whether animals can have religious faith is dependent on a sufficiently open definition of religion.

this is why you read the things you hastily google

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 09:34:39 2020 No.15706094 >>15706068 >spark that's imbued into all creation I dunno, he sounds too idealistic for that kind of basedness

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 09:58:50 2020 No.15706257

>>15706076
>So no, the original point does not stand unless it was specifically referring to judging non-apodictic/non-self referential arguments by decuctive standards (which we can't assume, since it wasn't specified — nor do you specify it here).
This is in fact what I was referring to, though I see now that it was mentioned in another post--not the one you replied to: >>15704846

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 11:12:31 2020 No.15706708

>>15706257
Ok well,
>just about the only thing fallacious arguments have in common is that they’re deductively invalid
is not the case. The anon does not seem cognizant of the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. Informal fallacies are the more common, and the commission of an informal fallacy in the course of a deductive argument -does not- necessarily render it invalid (the obvious example being question begging). Informal fallacies (which are really what we're talking about here) are -more- relevant to non-deductive arguments. You've got things backwards.

I don't see how the original 'argument' has any legs left to stand on, but if you're going to continue to defend it then I think some specific examples (and reasoning for why they can be generalized) are called for.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 11:21:14 2020 No.15706765 >>15704846 >deductive invalidity is not a basis for criticizing an argument >I want something more normative like good and bad you must be trying to be stupid on purpose

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 11:26:29 2020 No.15706801

>>15706708
>question begging
The fact that question begging is not deductively invalid on the page does not make it a valid thing in reality. Validity is a concept that applies to more than what you write, things besides logic reference this property. If a method of proof used can just as easily be used to prove the opposite claim (as BTQ can), then the method of proof is invalid even if the deduction is clean.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 11:36:41 2020 No.15706858

>>15694301
There's no such thing as the unnatural. If it's in our universe, it's natural. Dying from an illness is natural to the illness, going "insane" from "mental illness" is natural to the brain that is susceptible to such natural states. Appeal to nature became a fallacy when intelligent men realized that nature is a non-argument.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 11:57:00 2020 No.15707017

>>15706801
>things besides logic reference this property
Such as?

>prove the opposite claim
Calls into question the soundness of the deductive argument — not its validity. You're loose with terminology.

Anyway, I was responding to a claim re: a relationship specifically between deductive validity and fallacies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 12:36:07 2020 No.15707313 File: 36 KB, 900x506, 1592456251306.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15706858 >go through thread >mfw retard hivemind all posting same hot take

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 12:38:41 2020 No.15707337 >>15694301 cool, next time you get cut or seriously injured dont take antibiotics

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 12:40:30 2020 No.15707358 >>15707337 Antibiotics are overused and will no longer work within our lifetime.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 12:46:55 2020 No.15707420 >>15707017 >Calls into question the soundness of the deductive argument — not its validity. Which is in turn calling into question the proof method's validity >Such as? There are metalogics to evaluate proof methods themselves

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:22:38 2020 No.15707660 >>15698962 >tells someone he doesn't understand Aristotle at all while not understanding Aristotle at all lel

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:23:02 2020 No.15707666 >>15707420 >metalogics Are you implying that metalogical analysis isn't itself logical in nature? >the proof method's validity The fuck are you talking about? You're just being silly on purpose now right... Arguing for the sake of it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:24:09 2020 No.15707677 Because something being natural doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Death is natural. Do you want to die?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:25:41 2020 No.15707690 File: 56 KB, 1172x659, yes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15707677

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:28:07 2020 No.15707705

>>15694301
The problem is, how do you establish nature is good just because its natural? That just wasn't ever what the concept of the 'good' meant for people. Yes some people have always appealed to nature to justify what they call 'good' but they always included things that weren't natural as well, meanwhile plenty things from nature were seen as bad, nobody viewed natural disasters hurting humanity as good, or things like animals killing you or poisonous plants or diseases. All of that is 'nature.' That's why appeal to nature is a fallacy, because when you reflect on it, you realize that 'good' doesn't actually fully map on to 'natural.' A lot of fallacies are defined as fallacies because people appeal to something that doesn't map on in 100% of the cases, that's the case with nature not being 1:1 with goodness. It means that you're fallacious saying 'This is good because it's natural' because many natural things aren't good. Simple as that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:31:57 2020 No.15707729 File: 86 KB, 500x304, maybe-im-so-cool-i-wanna-die-10014764.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15707677

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:33:52 2020 No.15707743 >>15694321 >clothes are natural because nature would hurt without them t. doesn’t even know what these words mean lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:35:30 2020 No.15707759 >>15707313 Here's a hot take: Kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:49:48 2020 No.15707845 why do people say you need god to have morality as if god fixes the is ought problem? why ought I follow god? isn't that just throwing away rationality as a basis for morality and accepting god's will as your fundamental axiom?

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 13:59:59 2020 No.15707912

>>15706708
It's true that not every fallacious argument is invalid, but most are, and all that is typically said in defense of the view that any given fallacious argument is a bad argument is that it admits of counterexamples (though, granted, something different is said in the case question begging, circular arguments and some others).

Again, this is a very weak criticism of an argument form--every argument form that isn't deductively valid is subject to this criticism. What's more, it's hard to strengthen the criticism by saying something like the fallacies are those arguments forms that are, irrespective of their validity, BAD argument forms. It simply is not true that "fallacious" arguments are generally bad. Many are generally good, like affirming the consequent.

But maybe I'm just unaware of the justification for singling out certain argument forms like affirming the consequent or appeal to motive as fallacious despite how reasonable such arguments often are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 14:00:12 2020 No.15707913 >>15707337 What it doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 14:01:05 2020 No.15707922 >>15706765 I stand by what I said. Most GOOD reasoning is not deductively valid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 14:01:16 2020 No.15707924 >>15707913 *without the it.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 14:03:46 2020 No.15707946

>>15694301
The fallacy is about comparing humans to another animal, not evolutionarily. For example; men should have polygamous harems because that is how lion prides work. Or men should kill stepchildren like lions do. It is not like; modern society is poisonous to the psyche because we evolved for interdependent tribal society and this is the primary cause for modern unhappiness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 14:05:08 2020 No.15707953 >>15707677 Yes. Immortality would be horrible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 14:08:30 2020 No.15707972 >>15707677 death is good because once dead we can see God :D

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 14:40:51 2020 No.15708241 >>15707729 Incredibly based reply. Sam Hyde: Clown Prince of /lit/

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 17:24:53 2020 No.15709527

>>15707912
My key point is that a protestation on the grounds of fallacy is pertinent when your interlocutor is -relying upon that fallacy- as sufficient demonstration of their argument. If further reasoning is forthcoming, then such an objection may not be called for (again, 'the fallacy fallacy' is very telling when it comes ascertaining the intended application of those objections).

You seem to be generalizing the misuse of fallacy objections in particular instances to their use on the whole, but I don't think that misuse by 'pseuds' constitutes a good reason to deny these reasoning aids to those who apply them appropriately.

I'm not sure how you're supposing that affirming the consequent is "generally good" argumentation... It would seem to me that while it doesn't necessarily dissolve an argument, it would always be a weak point. Furthermore, how often do you honestly see anyone call out their interlocutor for a formal fallacy? Yes I'm comitting a fallacy here by arguing from anecdote, but I hardly ever see that happen. Appeal to motive is an informal fallacy, and so we're back to the first paragraph of this response... It's not necessarily bad form, but it is if relied upon exclusively (or near exclusively).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 17:27:59 2020 No.15709551 File: 93 KB, 1280x720, 1571315661787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15708241

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 17:29:12 2020 No.15709559 >>15707953 You can easily die whenever you want, but no one is able to live forever yet.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 17:31:45 2020 No.15709581

>>15707666
>Are you implying that metalogical analysis isn't itself logical in nature?
No I'm specifically implying that it IS, retard, hence the higher layer of validity. There are languages for discussing proof methodology, which discuss the mechanism of the method rather than the steps the method demands. If you don't have a means by which proof methods themselves can be evaluated then where are you even getting your idea of validity in the first place?

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 17:36:28 2020 No.15709612

>>15694301
it's not a fallacy to say that naturalness is good in and of it self, it's a fallacy to say something like "non gmo vegetables are more natural and therefore eating them will be healthier by metrics like tiredness or propensity to cardiovascular diseases"
also kys for making a non-literature thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 17:40:05 2020 No.15709652 >>15709551 Start with the greeks.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 17:48:17 2020 No.15709706

>>15709581
You were asked for examples of "things besides logic reference this property" (validity). To which you responded with metalogics, and yet you admit that metalogics are logic. Retard.

>where are you even getting your idea of validity In this instance, from the argument I was replying to which specifically referred to deductive validity (a context which you ignored when making your less than germane response).

You're a bit scatter-brained eh?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 17:49:51 2020 No.15709716 >>15707358 Sure thing pal.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 26 17:50:52 2020 No.15709724 >>15707953 Immortality is also natural. Specifically in jellyfish.

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 18:31:37 2020 No.15710042

>>15709527
Does "sufficient demonstration of their argument" require deductive validity? If so, and if the interlocutor needs their argument to be valid but it isn't, then this is indeed a problem. Unfortunately for the fallacy-fan, this very rarely happens. If sufficient demonstration means something else, then I think "fallacious" arguments can be "sufficient demonstrations". I can give a sufficient demonstration of the truth of a scientific theory by way of its successful predictions, which is basically just affirming the consequent (ie. "theory is true -> prediction will occur; prediction occurred; so theory is true).

This is basically why I think affirming the consequent is good: it's how we confirm hypotheses (relatedly, it's essentially one of the core principles of confirmation in the most widely accepted theory of confirmation: bayesian confirmation theory).

Anonymous Fri Jun 26 20:40:16 2020 No.15710879

>>15710042
>Does "sufficient demonstration of their argument" require deductive validity?
It depends upon the kind of knowledge being claimed (i.e. apodictic/tautological vs. everything else). Assuming we're talking about the necessarily uncertain kind of knowledge, then no, deductive validity is not a requirement.

I'm not sure about your example of affirming the consequent, since 1) scientific theories do not establish 'truths' in the sense your argument implies, only probable explanations and 2) no other actionable paradigm for establishing the probability of explanations is readily apparent, and so affirming the consequent seems like less of a transgression in this case.

If we tentaively accept the predictive paradigm and look at how hypotheses are confirmed within it, we see that alternative hypotheses (or at least the testable ones) are (ideally) seriously considered and controlled for... So I don't agree with your characterization of atc based upon the example of confirmation.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature