Talk:Naturalistic Fallacy
From EvoWiki
RE: Cubist (Talk | contribs) Right-wing propaganda deleted, on the grounds that nobody ever HAS used natural selection to argue for the welfare state
Shakespeare's Fool replies: In their discussions of logical fallacies, logicians do not restrict themselves to fallacies made. In formal logic they construct truth tables to describe all possible valid and invalid forms of the arguments they are describing. They sometimes use preposterous examples to sharpen their points. Some of these examples are quotations, other examples are made up by the logicians. In guiding us to improve our, thinking logicians value prophylaxis as well as refutation. Would we not be wise to do the same?
No -- it's a matter of focus. EvoWiki is not in the business of teaching courses in general logic; rather, EvoWiki is in the business of pointing out errors in Creationist arguments. It is true that this task can involve identifying logical fallacies, but that doesn't mean EvoWiki should offer anything like a class in general logic.
Shakespeare’s Fool does not understand your reply. If Evowiki exists to refute creationist fallacies why did you not remove the fallacy originally on the naturalistic fallacy page? After all to say "The naturalistic fallacy is the belief that what is natural is necessarily good (and that what is unnatural is bad). The naturalistic fallacy is often applied to natural selection ("survival of the fittest"). In nature the weakest (least fit) die, so the naturalistic fallacy says that we should dismantle welfare states and withhold charity and health care, to leave poor and ill people to die, or even to exterminate the weak," is to point out an evolutionist fallacy, not a creationist fallacy, is it not?
Wrong, S'Fool. "If evolution is true, we should let the strong stomp on the weak" is not an evolutionist argument; rather, it's a Creationist argument, which Creationists use to persuade people that evolution is a Bad Thing.
You are perhaps somewhat younger than I and therefore may be far better versed in current controversies concerning evolution and Biblical literalism. Creation Science is something that seems to have been invented sometime after I finished those parts of my formal education which touched on such matters.
Having just Googled, I see you are indeed correct that Creationists use Social Darwinism to oppose evolution. But Creationists did not create Social Darwinism. It is not clear to me who can rightly claim to be the first to have expounded it, though some attribute that to Herbert Spencer.
This much is clear: among its early proponents were people who used Darwin’s theory to support their claims.
The page [1] on the web site thinkquest.org summarizes what I was taught. Thinkquest.org quotes Richard Dawkins on its homepage. I suspect this means they are close to Dawkins in their stand on evolution.
It's really quite simple, Fool: EvoWiki isn't here to either provide a course in formal logic, or to highlight random abuses of evolution, or indeed to do much of anything else besides get the straight dope re: evolution out on public display. So I have to ask, why are you so all-fired determined to get this one irrelevant-to-EvoWiki point onto the EvoWiki that you've put it back three times running now? Gonna go for a fourth?
Additionally SF's example has some pretty poor examples of socially organised animals. While animals like geese often do form groups, most animals form small family groups, very few form very large herds of unrelated individuals and the only species that practice redistribution of wealth either expect something in return (reciprocal altruism), do so only to their close relatives (kin selection) or are social insects. EvoWiki should keep politics to the minimum, most instructive and relevant, and I think the first example, as a creationist claim, is relevant. Instructive hypothetical examples (and can we make it clear when something is a creationist claim and when something is a hypothetical example) are also welcome, but where possible we should keep politics minimal.
I also request that this issue remains on the talk page, not on the article, until an agreement or clear consensus is reached. When two people are repeatedly deleting each others' changes it can be difficult for other editors to make unrelated changes to the page. Joe D (t) 21:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
