Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 13

3634:

assert it is true, we could claim that it is either (a) contingently true, or (b) necessarily true. We could argue that "All communists are evil" by saying that it is analytically true, on the grounds that "communist" is synonymous with "evil and person" (just as we might say that "bachelor" is synonymous with "unmarried male"). Alternatively we could say that “All communists are evil" is a contingent truth; it just so happens that they are all evil. To say of any word X that is synonymous with Y it is make a lexical statement, a statement about how the words are used. In point of dispute consult a dictionary. Dictionaries with confirm "bachelor" is synonymous with "unmarried male" but not “communist" is synonymous with "evil and person" (accept perhaps in certain dialects spoken perhaps by right wing radio chat show hosts?). Turning to "Greed is natural/Greed is good": missing premise "Whatever is natural is good" full argument "Greed is natural, Whatever is natural is good /Greed is good" regarding the second premise "Whatever is natural is good" we could assert it as either contingently or necessarily true, and if the latter on the grounds that "natural" means “not made by man and is good", but do dictionaries support this assertion about the use of the word "natural"? I think not. If we assert that it, "Whatever is natural is good" is a contingent truth, and then one would have to show the research that has shown it to be so. A single instance of something being "not made by man" but not good, we refute the generalisation. Now I can think of a whole lot of people and things which are not man-made and which IMHO are not good, in fat a lot of them are quite the opposite. Looking at the stars above, I do not think of any of them as being good and yet none pf them are man made. Thinking of people, none of whom are man made, some of them IMHO are not good and some quite the opposite. Giving Hitler a rest for once, what about Pinochet? We only have to have ONE example of something not made and yet not good to refute the generalisation "Whatever is natural is good". I am sure everybody can think of a person or natural object or substance that they would not consider good, so everybody would reject the generalisation "Whatever is natural is good". I recommend a reading of Plato's Euthyphro, which considers inter alia the assertion "Piety is that which is dear to the gods" (6e) and the resultant question "whether the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious or pious because it is beloved by the gods". (10a) We can substitute the terms good and natural to obtain the assertion "Goodness is that which is natural" and the resultant question "whether the natural is good because it is natural or whether natural is good because it is good"—

985:

with naturalistic fallacy. I do not even understand why the idea of 'hidden premise' is attached to appeal to nature. I think to consider an appeal to nature, first resolve the context of the natural characteristics involved: there is the nature of humanity, the nature of an ecosystem, the nature of our sun, the nature of another sun... Could modern physics be said to have an appeal to nature? in how the laws of nature discovered nearby, are expected to also apply far away, in space and time - this assumption is tested and seems fairly true, though we do not know about spaces or times beyond visibility, and we dont know where dark matter/energy etc might fit in. To me this is similar to the a.t.n in ethics where the positive or negative effects of behaviours discovered in the animal kingdom, and are expected to be mirrored in human politics or ethics. The differences in the animal systems to human systems, is like a distance, which is presumed to be bridgeable. It is small suprise nature is such a detailed and complex concept, for it is very arguably the greatest part of existence, which physics and other sciences are uncertain, developing accounts of. An argument which avoids including some understanding of the meaning and significance of nature, is a special kind of argument i wonder about. There might be a threshold where unmanipulated reality / nature is so mundane/fundamental to the context, that it is no longer notable. Was it not first discovered that 1+1 = 2, and always 2 (given no hidden details) in nature? And that this observation should carry through all physical and metaphysical 'locations'? The article has yet, not quite got to grips with the rumoured fallacy of appealing to nature.

4084:

tables are lions" is false but surely "Bananas are tables/bananas are lions" is not a fallacy, its just silly. Perhaps Pfhorrest means that a mp argument is a fallacy if the mp is both (a) false (b) widely assumed to be true e.g. "Experts agree that food additives are harmless/food additives are harmless" mp: "Experts know the truth" or "God likes to be worshipped/worshipping God is good": mp "whatever God likes is good". The trouble with that analysis is that whether X is a fallacy or not depends on whether the mp is true or false, and whether it is widely believed. The fallacy status of an argument would therefore be contingent. Worse, arguments would become or cease to be fallacious as (a) and might turn out to be true (false) (b) a mp premise might become/cease to be widely believed. Various arguments put forward by Isaac Newton made assumptions (had missing premises). These missing premises were initially not widely believed (since at one time not yet published): at that time therefore not fallacies (b) later widely believed therefore fallacies iff mp were false (c) for may years mp considered to be true therefore arguments not considered to be fallacies (d) later mp found to be false, thanks to Einstein: for a while mp still widely considered to be true but on fact false therefore arguments fallacies (e) at some time the future, maybe, the mps will not be widely considered to be true (schools skip teaching Newtonian Mechanics and sip straight to Einsteinian): at that time the arguments will cease to be fallacies. —

5439:

is still notable enough that we have to count him as a current subject. Of course it requires a completely different way of defining nature (some bad things are because of accidents, which are not natural, and if I understand correctly they involve cases where two natures are trying to actualize in conflict with each other in the same matter which has two potential natures, etc etc. In effect some natures fail to achieve themselves. Please do not judge me on this quick summary!). I think we also can't veto him on the grounds of his having a special definition of nature as nature is always a bit hard to define anyway, also for those of us who take the modern approach. Many of the things you mention are also specifically human actions and that raises another question of course. Are human deliberate actions parts of nature? I would personally say they are, but I know not everyone sees it that way. Anyway Aristotle, to use him again, would say all human actions aim at some good. They just don't often get it right. In particular humans desire more than they should, and this is part of their nature. This is still understandable teleologically according to my understanding of Aristotle because this eros, when properly directed, allows the achievement of the highest form of humanity, which is a philosophical life.--

5094:

to lecture me about a talk page refactoring, where i moved one section of text to straighten time line, consolidated three short sections into one (concerning the deletion review which we hoped to move on from) and renamed one new section which i had clumsily named. He described my refactoring, innaccurately and uncharitably and did a refactor of his own blaming me for duplication and mess produced in his 'correction'. He started saying i lied about things (never found out what), and moved on to saying i lied about him "calling me a liar" ~(I did not call you a liar - i said you lie, "inccessant lies" etc). The only productive work Machine Elf has performed on the article was during the deletion review to establish the claim of fallacy. He has chastised me for attempting equality:"I think we both have everything to learn": -->

2284:

explaining the relationship of the concepts (that of an everyday understanding to validity) that were discussed in the lead. Linsabreeny agrees with me on the article talk page itself, so you're the only one out. You were reading the discussion here, and responding at points that were convenient to you, and you just assumed that you were right. But you never challenged what Pfhorrest or Logicalgregory said here, and you never bothered to dignify me with a reply that wasn't full of accusations of OR, violating verifiability standards, etc. etc. It is you who have been making this war, and refusing to engage with the substance of the discussion. You've only referred me to Knowledge articles that are unsourced (such as

3116:

then the additional requirement is of null effect. If they are not synonymous we can then decide whether "intelligible" should be an additional requirement for a truthbearer. I believe the writings on the Rosetta stone or something were "unintelligible" until somebody figured out the translation. I would say as an English speaker that the texts were not meaningless until they were translated. If they were meaningful (but as yet unintelligible) the declarative sentences on that stone were nevertheless truthbearers prior to translation. Therefore "intelligible" meaning "in known/understood language/code" would not be a requirement for a truthbearer. Perhaps there are other senses of

3861:

you can't see why the argument would be valid; you need extra groups of symbols to show the connection between them. We could formalize the argument by giving each proposition in it letter: we let "P" stand for "Bob is a bachelor" and "Q" stand for "Bob is unmarried". Then the logical form of the argument is "P. Therefore Q." Without knowing what P and Q mean (and thus what relation they might have to each other), we have no reason to think that that argument is valid. That's the whole point of logic: to arrange sentences in a way where you can see just by how they are arranged that the truth of one has to follow from the truth of some others. That's what logical validity is.

1844:

conviction–transcend this specific conversational context… Every agreement, whether produced for the first time or reaffirmed, is based on (controvertible) grounds or reasons. Grounds have a special property: they force us into yes or no positions. Thus, built into the structure of action oriented toward reaching understanding is an element of unconditionality. And it is this unconditional element that makes the validity (Gültigkeit) that we claim for our views different from the mere de facto acceptance (Geltung) of habitual practices. From the perspective of first persons, what we consider justified is not a function of custom but a question of justification or grounding.

622:. It is easy to think of other token of the naturulistic fallacy so defined setting, e.g setting M='is pious' and N='loved by the gods'; M='is good' N='increases net human happiness'; M='is good' N='has no alternative'; M='is good in some society' N='said to be good in some society'; M='is good' N='said to be good by an authority or expert' The question for the Encyclopaedia is whether (a) all or any such tokens of the naturalistic fallacy so defined should have their own article or (b) whether they should be given mentions as examples in the article on the naturulistic fallacy. Really IMHO the naturalistic fallacy so defined is an exemplification of the is-ought gap. 3905:

naturalness and goodness is not stated, and is necessary for the validity of the argument, and is therefore a missing premise. Some people here seem to be saying that because of this similarity, an appeal to nature cannot be considered a fallacy unless we consider all arguments with missing premises fallacious. If that is in fact being asserted, then I disagree: while such arguments, with their missing premises supplied, may be formally valid, the falsity of the implied missing premise may still make such arguments informally fallacious, and so if the implied premise about naturalness and goodness is false, then appeals to nature are (informally) fallacious too.

3927:

must be right). Therefore X." These are informal fallacies because the "of course" parts which they assume are false: not everything popular is good, not everything an authority says is right. If not all natural things are good, then appeals to nature are informally fallacious, just like appeals to popularity or authority. And I would say that that missing premise (that all natural things are good) is, at the very least, far from uncontroversial, and depends heavily on the (also highly controversial) meaning of "natural". The "Bob" argument instead relies upon appeal only to uncontroversial definition, which is not fallacious at all.

1438:, and read Hobbes on laughter for it, as I needed to "confer notability" with some sort of transitivity from Hobbes, as the article was about to be deleted as WP:NN. I rate the best philosophy as being when no one knows if it is a joke or not, and you keep going anyway. My definition of a good joke is when you are standing in front of a large audience and tell the joke, then the logician in the front row rolls their eyes and slaps their forehead and says "that's the worst joke I ever heard", but the rest of the audience is still performing the calculation. Freud's student's student, Piero Ferrucci, who is also the head of the 3356:

Q. For a trivial classic example, "Bob is a bachelor. Therefore, Bob is unmarried." If you formalize that as "P. Therefore, Q." then you have no formal grounds on which to make the inference. But if you break "bachelor" down to something like "unmarried but marriageable man", then P breaks down into something like "Q, R, and S", those being "Bob is unmarried", "Bob is marriageable", and "Bob is a man". From the conjunction of those it's trivial to prove Q, "Bob is unmarried". But without first proving (or taking as a premise) that "P iff (Q and R and S)", the inference from P straight to Q is formally invalid.

3783:“that there is no science of the accidental (kata sumbebēkos) is clear: for all science is either of that which is always or of that which is for the most part. For how else could one learn or impart it to another? Things must be determined as either occurring always or for the most part, e.g. that honey-water is for the most part beneficial to fever patients. But one will not be able to state when what occurs contrary to this happens, e.g. ‘at the new moon’—for then it will be the case on the day of the new moon either always or for the most part—but the accidental is the opposite of this.” ( 5458:

fallacy must not be just a rule of thumb, it must be a certain case to say, there is no merit in an argument of a certain kind. Appeals to nature have been identified as being of a certain kind, but nowhere has the charge of fallacy been substantiated, only quite briefly or less than coherently in a few refs, so far. If a wikipedia page charges a concept with fallacy without due consideration, then by its influence, it potentially does a great disservice to rational discourse, which is the opposite of what the identification of fallacy is meant to do.

3776:

advantage of stressing the causal nature of the connections involved. The whole point of the distinctions is precisely that something cannot be a matter of chance if it occurs regularly: and here of course ‘regularly’ does not mean ‘all or most of the time’ in any absolute sense. On the contrary, the occurrences of the conjunctions may be, in terms of absolute frequency, very rare indeed. What matters is that they instantiate regular conjunctions of events (and hence make such events in principle predictable…), which the accidental do not:

5454:

implies natural selection within that system has taken place in its presence, so some natural selection has occurred with or to the thing in question. Not being natural to a system, implies the system has not yet adjusted to it (should this be necessary), (by the whatever means the system is adjusted or self adjusts). This argument is sourced in the present article to a biochemists statement about the relative disruptiveness of synthetic hormones to (the natural system of) human health.

3883:

unmarried people, it does, so the argument is valid, if we assume the unstated premise about what bachelor means. So the valid argument is really "Bob is a bachelor. (And, I presume you know and so do not need to bother mentioning, all bachelors are by definition unmarried men). Therefore, Bob is unmarried." Or formally "P. (P if and only if Q and R). Therefore Q." The unstated definition of P, which is necessary to make the argument formally valid, is the hidden premise.

31: 3569:

Thus and similarly "Greed is natural/Greed is good": missing premiss "Whatever is natural is good" . Re "breaking down" the term natural: if "natural" means "not made by man and is good" (cf "bachelor" means "male and unmarried"). This would suggest the missing premiss for "Greed is natural/Greed is good" is "Whatever is natural is not made by man and is good". "Greed is natural/Greed is good" is

164:. Mathematicians called this statistics or philosophy, philosophers called it mathematics or statistics, and statisticians called it mathemtics or philosophy. Most in all these fields would rank it "low" on an importance scale for their fields (and rank me still lower). Models more generally, might be considered mid level importance in phil of sci. It might rank higher in phil of mind. 5023:] "This first (ancientconceptx) is, therefore, an (ancientconceptx) as benevolent,.. It is nature as normative, not nature as a source of inescapabilities and unalterabilities, that the Stoics first appeal to. There is a second (ancientconceptx), too, and this one goes a great deal farther outside the 'ethical' as conceived by Annas in an effort to reach normative conclusions." 1012:) since its creation, and there seem to be a lot of comments recently expressing similar sentiments. I'm considering putting it up for AfD but thought I would call for other editors' opinions here first, since I believe the article's creator is working in genuine good faith and the overall quality of the writing/editing/etc is not bad, so I think it deserves a fair chance. -- 4033:), and that premise has strong inductive probability known from study of evolution and natural history. This extra premise is "blindingly obvious" to many who understand evolution, somewhat understood by some, but by a few it is simply labeled contentious and ignored in favour of more contentious examples, resulting in the claims that all appeals to nature lack validity. 5392:

especially as that claim is disputed, it should be noted that arguing on talk pages how it is not a fallacy on the grounds of stipulated definitions of nature is pointless: you would need all reliable sources agreeing on a definition of natural and agreeing that that is necessarily good, otherwise you are doing original research or at best synthesis. --

2105:. I know you used to think if you change something else, you could use it an excuse to revert "and/or validity". But that never really worked like you thought it should, did it? FYI, it more overtly disclosed that you just make it up as you go along. I removed "and/or validity" every single time, because you put it back every single time. 930:' esoteric Logic and Phil of Sci text, but others are more subtle, and may requuire a unusual range of backgrounds in philosophy to find them all. If you do find them, you will be unlikely to delete them, as they are illustrative of the corresponding absurdity concept, so are better than a picture at being worth a thousand words. 5095:"I dont give a damn about what you think..keep your comments about other editors to yourself(?)...is that understood?" I have on several occassions attempted diplomacy with charitable apologies, which have been refered to later as admissions of guilt. I have requested moderation or review of our conflict several times. 4504:"Putnam's appeal to our linguistic intuitions" , "appealing, explicitly or implicitly, to a ‘same kind relation’." , "which of the kinds to which science makes appeal, if any, correspond to real natural kinds" , "the appeal to essences" , "appealing to certain entities, the natural kinds" , "direct appeals to intuition" 5229:

short Britanica article, paraphrasing it as though the sophists were significantly critical of appeal/s to nature, and in fact the article ended with this sentence: "Both Plato and Aristotle, in basing so much of their ethics on the nature of man, are only following up the approach begun by the Sophists."

4601:” is “unilateraly dictating what matters in the article”. However, it's true I can't seem to break the habit of trying to communicate with you; my apologies. As for the final part of your message, if I have to take this to ANI, I'll address it there. Please stop being belligerent; there's no call for it.— 5438:

It is an interesting question, but for that very reason it perhaps gives no easy way out. I might be wrong but I think there might still be people who might consider that for example Aristotle had the solution to these problems, or at least an explanation no worse than any other. And anyway Aristotle

5387:

The upshot of this is that there is nothing confusing about the notion of an informal fallacy: they are just fallacies that don't have to do with improper form per se, but rather with untrue (usually unstated and merely assumed) premises. As a result, if appeal to nature is a fallacy, specifically an

5324:

Ok, you got me, i suppose you will call that a lie. It is just a mistake, which perhaps 10% of my enflamed argument is. I extensively discussed that quote with you, and you just questioned my grounds. If you had read to the end of the article yourself, you should have realised it should not have been

5228:

There is nothing unusual about this switching of position and denial error from Machine Elf, it is a standard response of theirs to argue over points which have already been substantiated, with references which have already been shown to be insubstantial or irrelevant. Machine Elf did the same with a

4489:

This is a critical determination for the article because whether "appeal to nature" is a special label or a descriptive term is crucial to its comprehension. A difficulty has been that there are no textbook definitions of it as a special label, and its instances in texts are open to interpretion as a

4122:

Are informal fallacies part of Logic or part of Rhetoric? It is difficult to think of anything more formal than logic. So, the idea of an “informal fallacy” (if it is meant to be part of logic) is something I find incoherent. Also, many examples of informal fallacies often seem to be little more than

3800:

1. 30). In fact, the reason why universality fails in the natural world … for Aristotle material facts get in the way of form realizing itself. There will be individual reasons why the form fails to come to fruition (this sapling was blasted by lightning; that one eaten by goats); but these cases are

3482:

I find it unfair (to the concept of nature and those who consider it) to assume a missing premise. Why can 'x is natural' (in context) not be broken down like 'bob is a bachelor'? eg. exploring the biology of a deep cave, bob is unnatural therefore bob is a risk to the stability of the caves biology.

3355:

I think a lot of it depends on the type of argument you're talking about. Formally, you can never validly infer directly from some P directly to some Q... without first showing that P breaks down into some other combination of propositions which together entail the propositions which likewise compose

2805:

of an argument, although "p" may not necessarily have a determinate meaning in the formal criteria for an argument. However, as Philogo suggests below, any particular case of validity will necessarily depend on "p" being replaced by some truth-bearer or truth candidate, and therefore its meaning will

2640:

We can put it another way. A given understanding of nature includes the premises that (1) all things in nature ought to be respected, and (2) it would be disrespectful to spill large amounts of oil into the oceans, which are a part of nature. But instead of the above, I argue that we should therefore

2436:

Nature is a concept that has deep, deep, maybe the deepest possible, of any possible semantic and normative roots. Any discussion of an "Appeal to nature" should acknowledge this, and also therefore acknowledge that a "claim" to naturalness is not just a claim to being right or correct, or even good,

1864:

You go from undue weight to conflict of interest… why? Because I cite things that were written by a former teacher of mine, whose ideas I'm familiar with, having read his own work, his research, the sources he consistently quotes in his commentaries, the primary sources, etc.? Having spent almost ten

1743:

727:

My remarks above were not directed at Philogos 12 Feb comment. Personally, I would go along with the idea that the naturalistic fallacy is the result of a hidden premise. I would also want to say that the hidden premise is contingent. Now, is it a fallacy? I would want to say it is a mistake, but not

584:

The fact is that this doesn't begin to tell us anything about what it is that is being appealed to when we appeal to "nature" or "reason" (or indeed, "tradition"). Both concepts make (perhaps equally) strong claims on human beings, and an appeal to either one shouldn't be disparaged as "fallacies". I

580:

You would have "Appeal to reason is a fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is reasonable, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unreasonable or irrational. In this type of informal fallacy, reason implies an ideal or desired state of being, a

5751:

it would seem that the question of sourcing "cogency and/or validity" is moot. What "Machine Elf disagrees with" is that it can go without sourcing. It's true, I also don't believe it can be sourced, but the invitation to provide a source still stands. As a peace offering, I'd be willing to say that

5328:

The referencing has been entirely up to me? I dont remember touching any fallacy refs, i just single handedly had to argue against POV of the article which was supposedly supported by them for weeks, mostly against your own persuasions. Recently i have been drafting how to increase and reference the

5144:

I expect you to be civil and to focus on the encyclopedia, rather than on what minor wrongs, from our short history, you can complain about to whom. Please feel free to provide diffs at ANI. I challenge you to provide a diff where I call you a liar. I gave you extensive feedback on the lies you tell

5039:

This is all in response to objections which have been put by one editor not happy with how wording and sections comply with his understanding of "the appeal to nature concept" ("it is not an argument" etc) - which i have never found to be defined, yet is insisted to be an NPOV anchor of the article.

4509:

My own understanding is that with the lack of textbook definition of the label "appeal to nature" and various useage of the "appeal to" expression, and some actual examples of a.t.n in different arguments, that the term is descriptive. I have not been able to resolve a common denomiator for it other

4396:

The discussion in the "Modern developments" section cites 3 different sources: Rousseau, Rodney Brooks, and Kompridis. One was written 250 years ago, another is by a prominent roboticist, and the final source is Kompridis' paper, which also discusses the other two sources. This is a short section of

4053:

As well as 'appeal to nature' being a term that speaks of ancient philosophical search for direction in nature, it is used today in less specialist discussion. "Natural" has many synonyms. I have read philosophy texts indentify and discuss different appeals to nature, i do not recognise yet a common

4024:

What I find uncharitable about 'appeal to nature's reputation of fallacy or invalidity, is that the example which i gave of "x is natural to a natural system, x is good for that system" is very similar (in ecological and biological terms at least) to the example "metals expand when heated, iron will

3749:

ii.8. 19834–35) and this means that they are susceptible of genuine final cause explanations. But what does it mean to say that they happen either always or for the most part? Clearly there is no requirement that they be continuous (hot weather happens in the summer for the most part; but weather is

3115:

then we have a valid argument. Whatever the truthbearers may be, if something is not meaningful then it is not a truthbearer. Adding "intelligible" as a further requirement for a truthbearer only makes a difference if we can say how "intelligible" differs from "meaningful". If they are synonymous

2912:

used an ‘appeal to nature’ to argue toward contrary sides (for different clients); that this was a ‘major’ factor leading to their persecution; and that, although the appeal was pre-Socratic in origin, much of the ethical work of Plato and Aristotle was just "following up" on that which the sophists

2625:

Let's say that a given understanding of nature includes the premises that (1) all things in nature ought to be respected, and (2) that it is disrespectful to spill large amounts of oil into the oceans. And I argue that we should not spill large amounts of oil into the oceans, because they are a part

2501:

You make noise like what you say is authoritative on account of your gravitas. All I'm asking is a source. It's standard practice here on WP. Is that the way an “ignorant bully” behaves? Do fine upstanding gentlemen like you and your associate eclipse my “shameful meanderings”. If you can't cite the

1859:

One more thing, unless it would be inappropriate, I'm going to forward Walkinxyz's latest talk page post to the conflict of interest noticeboard for discussion. Although I find Walkinxyz's contributions to be somewhat concerning at first blush, I'm not personally inclined to examine them thoroughly,

1544:

Let me give an example: Blair said "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" this was notable under Def B, because it provoked notice. But I want it argue that it was not notable under Def A, because it was false and there was no evidence that it was true (therefore, it was not worthy of being

984:

Thankyou to everyone for your help with this article especially Walkinxyz. I still find it has some ragged edges and bumps, there is still some contention as to whether the term might apply only to arguments which contain certain problems.. The 'missing premise' idea could be from a basic confusion

585:

would therefore object to the neutrality of this article, and also suggest that it isn't, in fact, what it claims to be about. If any kind of "appeal" can be debunked as easily as the appeal to nature is here, then we should be worried about the very possibility of "appeal" or "grounds" for argument

435:

If you are interested in editing the Logic articles, then Add {{User WP Logic}} to your user page. It will automatically add you to Category:Logic task force members. You may also choose to place the Logic Navigation Banner on your user page by adding {{Knowledge:WikiProject Logic/Nav}} or the Logic

5722:

Also note that this term is solidly referenced as used as a kind of philosophical argument and grouping of arguments, which is why discussion of its fallacious reputations was moved out of the intro and the section "Rational Argument" created. How could proffessional philosophers throughtout feilds

5613:

Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and bad deductive arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label: “invalid”). The terms most often used to

5239:

One can not ask for cogency or reflection from Machine Elf, who has moved from using the fallacyfiles.org blog-like page as one of his prime references, to occasionaly admitting it's incoherence. Almost every comment i have had from them is erroneous. They have been sowing confusion and frustration

5093:

I find Machine Elfs responses above characteristicaly sarcastic, dismissive ,unpleasant and unproductive. This editor has ignored, dismissed, and misrepresented my inputs from the day he first started editing the article (as a fallacy ref) during the deletion review. In my talk page he can be seen

4733:

There can be no single "concept" (unless it has been hiding really well) - We may find different conceptualisations in antiquity, throughout the ages, in different feilds, even in casual debate, and that's great for the article, but the words of the term themselves have meaning and are so common in

4083:

missing premise arguments the same status, including say "Bananas are tables/bananas are lions" - mp "all tables are lions", RAA. However Pfhorrest calls my bluff apparently saying above that we can say just those missing premise arguments whose premises are false are fallacies. But obviously "all

3860:

To Lisna, the reason why "Bob is a bachelor. Therefore Bob is unmarried." is an argument with a missing premise is because if you formalize the argument, which is to say assign arbitrary symbols for each part of it and just look at how those symbols relate to each other and not what they mean, then

3618:

To ignore nature, is to dance off a cliff, to make detergent soup for lunch, to shoot every Dodo, to set off into the desert with nothing to drink. What is more complete, more connected to reality, than nature? Why is it then, assumed so often, that to argue from nature is characterised by its lack

3599:

It occurs to me that in the past, there was more mystery/divinity involved in what was 'good' about different aspects/contexts of nature, so more need for the leap of faith, intuitive acceptance, extra premiss -because however it worked, it worked (to come into being and/or survive) Now we have the

3526:

Appeals to nature contain only one necessary "hidden" premise: "You ought to consider the meaning and significance of nature in considering the cogency and validity of this argument". It doesn't mean that nature=good. You can appeal to nature in deciding to stay at home – away from nature – because

3440:

In the case of an invalid logical form there is no need to replace variables with meaningful truth-bearers. This is because whatever statements and truth values we use in the replacement we will still have an invalid argument. Put whatever you like in your truth tables - it will make no difference.

2692:

has to be a truth bearer, and if it is a truth bearer it must be a statement, and if it is a statement it must be meaningful (intelligible?). That is, that unintelligible sentences have no truth value and, therefore, no place in logic. This may be correct but its a much longer argument. It would go

2648:

To make sense of the logical form or structure of the argument, you need to know what is entailed by "respecting" something, and that respecting something is different from doing whatever you want. Therefore, an understanding of what we're talking about is a necessary part of establishing validity.

576:

I think there should be an article called "appeal to nature", and I think it should be an important topic for Knowledge philosophy, but if I may… imagine if the article were titled "appeal to reason" instead, and you replaced all instances of "nature" appearing in the article with the word "reason"

556:

I think Lisnabreeny brings up an important point. The first paragraph of the "appeal to nature" article makes "appeal to nature" sound like an established fallacy like "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" (appeal to authority). At least it had me fooled for a moment. But like Lisnabreeny I could not find it

532:

Like the prevailing "Appeal to nature" article, it will quietly sustain a following who are convinced of wp:philo's error, without ever having to cite a single philosophy text to establish the claim. This could be even easier than the appeal to nature, as 'appeal to wp:philo.' is a concept not even

5415:

believe or hold that the natural is necessarily (or contingently) good? It seems such a bizarre idea that I would be intrigued to hear from somebody who thinks they can defend the position. Presumably they will have to say of each of the following that they are not natural or that they are good.

5018:

Yet they discuss several "appeals to nature" within the particular "appeal to nature" concept which they discuss. Which demonstrates that the words have meaning of their own, as well as being used as a label, for the particular concept being explored. Here is a quote from Coopers comments on Annas

4738:

multiple individuated instances of the phrase a.t.n. in most every ref which contains it. I puzzled over dozens of sources for weeks to learn 'a concept' of appeal to nature, but they are multiple and all just essentially (arguments from) (nature). (And that is what the intro stated so clinicaly.)

4725:

None of the references you put above define a concept of "appeal to nature" i do not recall specifically but expect that they all examine multiple appeals to nature (i do know that the third one does). There has been sooo much discussion now on what an appeal to nature is and is not, from way back

3633:

In the case of "Bob is a communist/Bob is evil" the missing premise is “All communists are evil"; “so that the corresponding argument is "Bob is a communist, All communists are evil /Bob is evil". That is a valid argument. It is SOUND if in addition, both premises are true. For each premise, if we

3595:

The 'Bob is a bachelor' premiss interests me because being unmarried seems part of the normal definition of being a bachelor, not something extra or optional, so the deliberation seems almost ~linguistic. In a similar way to bob is a bachelor entailing unmarriedness, in the context of safety to an

3568:

A so-called "missing premiss" of an argument is simply the premis which, if supplied, would make the argument valid. Eg For argument "Bob is a communist/Bob is evil" missing premiss is "All communists are evil"; "Bob is a bachelor/Bob is unmarried": missing premiss "All bachelors are unmarried".

1522:

Looie brings up an important point. We could say that there are two definitions of notability. Def A connotes values such as worthiness. Def B has no value connotation and means nothing more than capable of provoking notice. Under Def B establishing notability is unproblematic; if a statement has

5453:

I don't allude to being able to give the question a strong philosophical treatment, but i do believe that ,being natural to a system is in some important ways inherently good for it, in a strong inductive sense. Being natural to a 'natural' system, implies having been naturally selected by it, or

4578:

What I'm asking is for you to please use the article discussion page or to start a new topic here. Walkinxyz has made an unbelievable number of claims about what people here have authorized him/her to do per consensus. Aside from that mayhem, if anyone has any comments or concerns, I'd like to be

3983:

feature in reviewed text and papers, it is just that the term "fallacy" never does with it, and the various reasonings of the fallacy never does. Read some of those googled references for appeal to nature fallacy, and tell me how many impress you, and how many are thinnly reasoned obvious opinion

3926:

Consider for example uncontroversial informal fallacies such as appeal to popularity or appeal to authority. These operate along the lines of "X is popular. (And of course all popular things are good.) Therefore X is good." or "Authorities declare that X. (And of course anything an authority says

3904:

I haven't really been following the whole appear to nature part of this discussion, but what I gather is people are saying than an appeal to nature of the form "X is natural. Therefore X is good." is no different from "Bob is a bachelor. Therefore Bob is unmarried." The implied connection between

3359:

In that sense, yes, the meaning of the propositions matters to the argument's validity, inasmuch as the meaning tacitly functions as a premise in the argument. But with more clearly formalized arguments, such as "P. P xor Q. Therefore not Q." the meaning of P and Q is completely irrelevant to the

1900:

I don't know where to bring this up, but my words and actions have been the subject of misrepresentation by Machine Elf...If you read the section he quoted below that, it is clear that I said no such thing. What I said was that they agreed with me on the question of logical priority of meaning to

1871:

If my teacher made a scientific discovery in the area of stem cells, and I decided to work on the Knowledge stem cell article because his name wasn't there, and furthermore I had access to sources that acknowledged his contributions (or his own refereed/reviewed articles), and their significance,

1324:

When I started this section I said “There is no Knowledge article on notability", and I think that was a notable thing to say. However, when I said it, it was true. Since then PPdd has started a nobability article, so now my statement is false and, I think, no longer notable. We might want to say

2355:

every time that Machine Elf reverted an edit about "and/or validity" he did it on grounds that I responded to by changing the wording of the article in an original way. ... If you think this constitutes OR, you're illiterate. Original wording and original research are obviously not the same, and

2283:

If you think this constitutes OR, you're illiterate. Original wording and original research are obviously not the same, and Knowledge articles most certainly can and must contain original wording. I used an ordinary language definition of validity, backed up by a source that was authoritative in

1875:

I gain nothing financially through my work, this is a volunteer effort. He hasn't asked me to do it, I'm not under his supervision, and I don't think it's a conflict of interest or undue weight, given that I've included other sources and worked on the rest of the article as well, which in no way

1442:

by descent (I'm "conferring notability", and T. H. Huxley's "ascent of man" from apelike ancestors should really be "decent", as humans "descended" from anscstors, not "ascended"... except for maybe Aldous Huxley)... Piero just wrote a book titled "Beauty" with an interview of me in it, where he

1340:

I agree with your decree, as it makes things more easy to resolve. For example, since "this sentence is false" is notable and even famous, it must be "not false", by application of our consensus degree "a notable statement is not false". But is not being false the same as true? Another decree on

732:

for putative forms of reasoning that lead to self contradiction. That's my idea on that subject. In the Naturalistic fallacy article it does not state that it is, in fact, a fallacy, but only that Moore said it was. So I have no problem with that either. However, in the discussion section of the

5577:

Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true. Even a good inductive

4563:

You are unilateraly dictating what matters in the article, with no support yet in this case and having composed very little of the article yourself. Walkinxyz's explaination of essentialy an argument/appeal in philosophy is not OR. Your extra conceptualisation of the term is so far OR, and this

4016:. Speakers and writers will often leave out a strictly necessary premise in their reasonings if it is widely accepted and the writer does not wish to state the blindingly obvious. Example: All metals expand when heated, therefore iron will expand when heated. (Missing premise: iron is a metal)." 3882:

In the case of "P. Therefore Q.", what we would need to make that connection would be "P only if Q" (or equivalently "If P, then Q"). A definition of something gives you an "if and only if", so if the definition of "P" includes "Q" then you've got what you need; and in the case of bachelors and

1843:

Everyday understanding makes possible a kind of understanding that is based on claims to validity and thus furnishes the only real alternative to exerting influence on each other in more or less coercive ways. The validity claims that we raise in conversation–that is, when we say something with

639:

A point at issue here is whether an appeal to nature should be classified /described as a fallacy in the Knowledge. It seems that there is no authoritative body of existing research that will resolve this issue one way or the other. Therefore, Wikipedians are now discussing whether an appeal to

5457:

The arguments of fallacy, i have difficulty following because the various appeals to nature are so complex and i personally find many compelling, rationally as well as instinctive/ideologically even spiritually (indigenous cultures often have a special regard for what appears to be natural). A

5235:

It took me several hundred words of petition in discussion and multiple reverted edits to get the paraphrase fixed and i only succeeded in the end by pasting the direct quote on top of their paraphrase which was: "The Sophists were the first in Ancient Greece to challenge this understanding of

4955:

Linsabreeny found an analogue to the type of appeal to nature that Kompridis talks about, which is an analogue to the Greek appeal to nature, in that it sees an essence (or a kind, etc.) as a source of meaning, norms, etc. This is absolutely relevant. You were the one who brought up the Modern

4626:

When you do not get any other feedback on your editing conflicts, you cannot simply brush off mine with misplaced wp:directives, and charge me repeatedly and explicitly with lying in my talk and the articles discussion, etc. and then expect to be immune to dispute. If you do not like what i am

3775:

may be closer to Aristotle's general position here. N* is expressed in a form appropriate to syllogistic inference (although the applicability of syllogistic to the logic of ‘for the most part’ is strictly limited). These dyadic interpretations of ‘always or for the most part’ have the further

3764:

where p isolates the relevant background domain in which we are interested (given that it is summer, hot, dry weather is to be expected). I formulate N in terms of propositional variables for generality's sake, in order to encompass lucky events, such as the meeting at the market-place; but in

617:

is either (a) contigently true or (b) necesary true, then an argument which takes "is good" as M and "is natural" would be the so-called "appeal to nature" and a token of the naturalistic fallacy. On this reading of the naturalistic fallacy, token of the falacy are a sub-set of arguments with

5391:

Whether appeal to nature is fallacy depends on the truth of the unstated premise which defines the appeal, namely that the natural is necessarily good. This in turn depends on the definition of "natural". And while I think we need a source to back the claim that appeal to nature is a fallacy,

5595:

All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid, and so “fallacious” in the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are not intended to, entail the truth of the argument’s conclusion, and so even the best inductive argument falls short of

2744:

indeterminate as opposed to something with a determinate value.) Mathematics is also dependent on language, as the concept of a symbolic "language" is dependent on our everyday understanding of language, even though they are not identical. While purely "formal" validity may be theoretically,

2432:

I think Lisnabreeny is making an important point with this suggestion, but I don't think his proposed revision accomplishes the required task. What is needed is some explication of the various meanings of "nature", such that a discussion of evaluations of "rightness" or "correctness" in our

4816:

And are you just being egregiously uncivil or do you have a diff where I say anything even remotely similar to “some mysterious untracable concept”? I believe the only adjective I've use with that is “philosophical concept”, but go right ahead and produce a diff or apologize for your bull.

5768:, such as the skeptic who's attributed opinion was quoted in the article. Other sources could be included to represent different opinions on whether or not it's a fallacy, and if so, why (or what kind). Just to be clear: we could probably find some sources regarding missing premises and 4555:

You are the only one saying "its not an argument - its a concept". There is no source defining it as "a concept". There is one suggesting "the appeal to nature" in classical greece. In the talk pages multiple individual appeals to nature are referenced. The normal language says it is an

5416:

Smallpox, rape, pillage, constipation, murder, snot, cancer, zenophobia, racism, selfishness, breaking any or the ten comandments, protons, neutrons, the moon, each grain of sand in the Sahara desert, every fragment of rock or cloud of gas in the universe. If there are no defenders of

4622:

We are working with around 4 or 5 references which use the term (aside the various and unsubstantiated and privately published 'fallacy concepts'). Which one/s do you find define a concept of 'appeal to nature' which in any way restricts the standard philosophical meaning of (an appeal

4349:

for discussion. Although I find Walkinxyz's contributions to be somewhat concerning at first blush, I'm not personally inclined to examine them thoroughly, and it's not my area of philosophical interest. I would rather limit my comments to the discussions here and to the content of the

3178:

A truth-bearer (or truth "candidate") may not have to be intelligible in itself, but in order to establish its validity, we will need to make sense of it somehow. The question was not, "is meaning the same as intelligibility?" but rather, "isn't meaning logically prior to validity"?

2172:

But I'm sure you read all that on the talk page... and firmly believe you're 100% right nonetheless. And since you can't let go of those 3 words, it will never be easy, because apparently the source you'll need is pretty much going to have to say "cogency and/or validity" won't it?

3531:

from nature, if that is your understanding of nature (i.e. that humans are separate). There are "cascading" premises "hidden" in all arguments that have any meaning, because there is a theoretically limitless web of meaning or "aboutness" attached to (implied by) every "premise."

1591:

Your "two different definitions" bifurcation is relevant to Knowledge, and I am surprised it was not put forth at talk:WPNOTE before. WP:NOTE does not acknowledge A-notability at all, but it does acknowledge B-notabiity, and all inclusionist-deletionist arguments are about the

4049:

Philogo - Thankyou, quite a lot to consider. I read that a generalisation with no acceptions is deductive, and one with exceptions (which most generalisations are -at least potentialy) is inductive. So i do not follow entirely the problem with generalising in the presence of

2440:

Unfortunately, if it is deleted, then we will miss an opportunity to clarify the meaning of this "appeal", which is obviously important enough that is getting attention here from around the web. If we delete the article, that will leave a noticeable hole in the fabric of the

4078:

I suggested above that if we allowed one missing premise argument (i.e. appeals to nature e.g. "Greed is natural/Greed is good" or "Organic is natural/organic is good" or "Skinny-dipping is natural/skinning-dipping is good) the status of fallacy then we would have to allow

3736:

and if the two were taken together as a logical equivalence, it would clearly be the target Moore's attack. But it's all left unexplored... so as a source for the WP article, it's a mixed bag: the suggested forms are iffy at best, but the suggested rule of thumb is quite

2735:

can be arbitrary is irrelevant. But in philosophical arguments, such as an appeal to nature, the statements have to be more or less meaningful, more or less understandable to make sense of their form. Even 'p' has to be intelligible, in as much as it is understood as an

4922:

So you've found “dozens” of sources about “(arguments from) (nature)”. Which would actually need to go in one of nature articles rather than this one? So, in your opinion “(And that is what the intro stated so clinicaly.)” Huh? Are the parentheses magic? Can I go now?

3045:

is sometimes listed among the plethora of fallacies based on informal notions, (i.e. valid but naughty) and these are often presented as if there's no question about it, if it walks like a duck... However, because a source actually explains that for certain topics, an

5357:

Please nobody state on my behalf that I agree with them. Feel free to state that you agree with me, or that it sounds like I agree with you, or reference my comments in support of your position, but don't straight up claim that I back you unless I explicitly said so.

1415:

article, so thought I might as well name drop it here), I added to the new talk page questions about what it is to notice something, and what "worthy" means in this context. And resolved paradoxes can always be unresolved. There is also the matter of notable being of

3974:

What is the difference between showing that a kind of argument might contain 'controversial' hidden premiss, and coining a term for all similar sounding arguments as a "fallacy"? This "fallacy" appears in random personal notes and leaflets on the internet and is

1304:

And just like in philosophy, where there is nothing new under the sun, i.e., an existing philosophy of anything, there is also nothing new under the sun in law, i.e., an existing lawsuit about anything - "notability" is a civil tort in Chinese entertainment law.

4726:

when you where insisting it was a fallacy of some kind, to lately where it is some mysterious untracable concept, how could we be at the state of saying now, that there is definition of "the concept" somewhere within these refs, without actually being able to

5369:

Validity is the only one of them concerned solely with formal matters, as validity consists just in proper form and nothing else: an argument is valid if and only if its form is proper to show how the truth of the conclusion is entailed by the truth of the

5141:. I don't think it's appropriate, here in this forum, for you to carry on about the so-called lecture. I didn't let you rearrange the talk page history. Live with it. One needn't look far in this thread to see that you lie about me often and needlessly. 2437:

but is a claim that at its most basic, possesses some significance to human beings, and it should do this by saying something about what that significance is. At present, the article dismisses that significance, which is as empirical as the day is long.

2081:

Let me be clear – every time that Machine Elf reverted an edit about "and/or validity" he did it on grounds that I responded to by changing the wording of the article in an original way. I have not been "edit warring" but responding to criticism. EVERY

5763:

Various sources claim various fallacies are committed by various appeals to nature... only one source is included in the article thus far. It claims that it can be taken as a rule of thumb, (not a fallacy). It also claims that some consider it to be a

4510:

than that the concepts of argument and nature feature, and particular examples seem to go back to the beginnings of where the concept of nature was significantly formalised and introduced to ancient philosophy (by socrates according to aristotle iirc)

3291:

To put my question another way: Does the establishment of validity in a particular argument logically entail that the meaning of its premises are already more or less clear? And therefore, does the validity not (partially) depend on the meaning of the

2971:

important, and that's why I want to include it. But my dictionary tells me that "cogent" also means "logical", and therefore includes some logical concepts such as validity. It is important to me that this not be dropped for the wrong reasons, that's

2745:

trivially, independent from the meaning of a statement, in practice it is in a logically secondary position to meaning. You don't have to go "deep into the theory of meaning", you just have to think about things in practice, and not just in theory.

2334:

I haved mentioned this conflict on the ANI noticeboard, where my case with Machine Elf is to be reviewed. I do not think you need to add anything, i just need to let you know. Not sure you have a 'watch' on your talk page so i post here. Regards.

1447:

like, and I said that the "QED moment" felt the same as the feeling at the instant when one gets the punchline of a joke. The upshot is that I still have to think aobut your response to the paradox, and I also put a section on transitivity in the

4500:

does not use "appeal to nature" but the subject and explaination suggests that "appeals to" nature could feature in various takes on the concept of natural kinds. The article uses the "appeal to" expression, seemingly quite freely - six times:

663:

This is just a rough draft of the paradox, but I think people will get the idea. I have noticed that various discussion pages throughout the Knowledge tend to drift into original research, it seems there may be a logical requirement to do so.

3068:

and supporting articles. It just seems that citing his paper three times when it doesn't even contain the term "appeal to nature" is probably undue weight—especially when combined with the inflexibility about where exactly that section should

533:

written of neutrally as yet in any philosophical texts. Although that means it would loose out on discolouring all the seemingly neutral instances of the term written to date, as the 'appeal to nature' fallacy article does quite effectively.

3796:…Aristotle rather suggests that there will always be some merely accidental cases of honey-water not being beneficial: and if they are merely accidental, then they are not themselves capable of formulation in universal or majority form (see 5680:

But I will still argue from this that an "Appeal to nature fallacy" should not be presented as a well established one, in the article. Because no sources show that popular appeals to nature "fail to meet the standards required of inductive

2296:) with reliable sources and a "novel" (frightening!) "gnosis" (spooky!) of argument that is based on the work of one of the most influential continental AND one of the most influential American pragmatist philosophers of the 20th century. 1729:

If you read the section he quoted below that, it is clear that I said no such thing. What I said was that they agreed with me on the question of logical priority of meaning to validity in an ordinary language argument, phrased as follows:

3648:

Be careful with dictionaries. Etymology is empirical. If we agree with Hume, everything empirical is contingent. Therefore, if the Oxford Dictionary says “All bachelors are unmarried men” this only implies that there is evidence that

1545:

noticed). In the event, because the statement provoked notice many people believed (falsely) that it was worthy of notice. The reasoning goes "It is notable because Blair said it" (Def B), "if its notable it must be worthy" (Def A).--

1325:

that a statement is not notable if it is false, or, the equivalent, a notable statement is not false. Would we be correct in thinking that where a statement X is judged to be notable there is a tacit judgement that X is not false?--

4247:“And Pfhorrest, who gave the only complete answer to my question on WIkiProject Philosophy, also agreed with me in terms of the logical priority of meaning to validity, a conversation which Machine Elf did not bother to comment on” 4098:

Re < "x is natural to a natural system, x is good for that system" is very similar (in ecological and biological terms at least) to the example "metals expand when heated, iron will expand when heated" The 'missing premise' is

2490:

Why would I dignify etc. etc. you? (A genuine question). Look through your edit history at our 2 protracted pointless arguments, “incoherent”, “ignorant bully”, “absolutely impenetrable”, “not NPOV”, “illiterate”... and you tell

2836:

removed too IMO, but one thing at a time), I've removed the trailing sentence from "my" version: “To appeal to nature in an argument is to argue from a premise or premises implied by the concept of nature being invoked in that

2453:

is a form of argument that depends on an understanding of "nature" as a source of meaning and intelligibility for human beings, and which also appeals to the normative or ethical content of that concept for its cogency and/or

2412:

3614:

Apologies, i do try to follow and look forward to understanding the technical, but what i read is ever shifting summaries that appeals to nature lack something. Something unique enough to be cautioned against and preferably

5694:

We could do a review of the various positions of the sources which do describe an "appeal to nature fallacy" (which i find mistaken and conflicting) and the lack of description in other, most substantial fallacy refs (eg.

5480:

believe or hold that the natural is necessarily (or contingently) good. Therefore they must ackowledge, surely that the so-called appeal to nature argument is not cogent (because its mp is false) and therefore it is an

1734:

Does the establishment of validity in a particular argument logically entail that the meaning of its premises are already more or less clear? And therefore, does the validity not (partially) depend on the meaning of the

214:, over the hill by age 35. Given the SYNTHiness of the conceptual model catch-all aricle, I hope it (or sections of it) does not have an even shorter duration. (Another "conceptual model" is in the following section.) 3467:

Philogos, I think it is normally a missing premise. Therefore, it is neither valid nor invalid but contingent on the truth of the missing premise. In this case, I find it hard to understand how it can be classed as a

5035:

I concluded we have to allow multiple concepts of "appeal to nature", as well as multiple "appeals to nature" (arguments). In the context of their works feilds, authors conceptualise "the/this/that/these appeal/s to

1575:

I agree with your "two different definitions", but I don't like your example, since a prime minister saying something false that leads to war is worthy of notice, no matter what they say. Perhaps a better example is

2600:

I would like to say that "An appeal to nature is a type of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a source of intelligibility for its claims, and which relies on that understanding for its cogency

3182:

truth-bearers are not necessarily valid/invalid, Eg "It is raining". Just those which are logal truths or negations of same. To answer whether "X is logically prior to Y" we must agree what we mean by "logically

4403:

However, neither of these two people have commented on the normativity of nature, to my knowledge, which is appealed to by the Greeks and by many other arguments in this article. Kompridis does comment on this.

4057:

Whatever the ancient and modern philosophical deliberations about what is good, i expect that stars in some important ways are good, and it would be a detached mind indeed that looks on them unappreciatively :]

5509:

In the ancient context, I don't believe an appeal to nature intended a missing premise that the natural is necessarily good. I clipped a somewhat overly long analysis of how one might formalize natural claims

4548:

No, what i have said here, is that it seems to be plain philosophical language (appeal to)(nature) - "A type of argument that depends on an understanding of X as a source of intelligibility for its claims..."

2433:

reasoning, with respect to appeals to that concept, have some footing. What I am speaking of here is a priority of meaning to validity, or intelligibility to judgment, in the conceptual scheme of the article.

5207:

they quoted it as the only source "that gives a generic form for the argument" and argued their petty objection to 'and/or validity' with it :"because a source actually explains that for certain topics, an

2693:

deep into the theory of meaning. Personally, I would not go there, instead I would limit my universe of discourse to meaningful statements viz. any argument that is valid and meaningful... blah, blah, blah.

3551:

Just to note the difference: 'Hidden' means it should be there to be found (with a hint of deliberate obfuscation), 'missing' means it does not seem to be present (with the suggestion that we have looked).

701:. The natural place, I have suggested, for such tokens or examples, would be within a paragraph headed perhaps "examples" of the article nauralistic fallacy. This would be achieved by MOVING the article 1133:

I did no such thing. I consistently re-worked the wording, removing a word that was objected to ("content") because it was seen as somewhat misleading, then I re-worked it again, and provided a reference.

5031:

We see that without allowing normal interpretation of the terms words, we have a recursive incoherent tangle of definition: (x) is (x as p) , (other x) is ((x without p) with q) , (x) is (x) and (other

4551:

There does seem to be at least one particular (appeal to)(nature) involved in discussion on the nature of natural kinds, but besides i quoted that article to illustrate the meaning of the words "appeal

3952:). I also think the lede of the article could use a lot of cleanup; it's not at all clear to me on a first read what it's trying to say. I think modelling it after the informal fallacy articles such as 2483:

But you never challenged what Pfhorrest or Logicalgregory said here, and you never bothered to dignify me with a reply that wasn't full of accusations of OR, violating verifiability standards, etc. etc.

430:

is not being actively updated, but there are many articles in need of attention. Actively updating the task list would help by directing the attention of editors to articles encouraging co-ordination.

2204:(Removed "content" from lead – hoping this is the end of it. If an understanding of nature isn't involved in an appeal to nature's validity, nothing is. This isn't OR, it's what the article is about.) 2317:

As for the rest, these have indeed been rather shameful meanderings, and I'm not inclined to rehash what anyone can read, if they care to descend to the depths which you've brought the discussion.

353:, I think the concept teaism deserves its own article, just like tea ceremony and tea culture. Even if the teaism article it not part of the philosophy project it still is a tea term and concept. 5294:

LOL, “multiple reverted edits” I didn't touch your Sophist edit, I love it. Central to my argument, that the referencing has been entirely up to you and that's why there's only 1 for fallacies?—

5072:

Quite a few say it's one fallacy or another... outside of politics, most of them conformed to the good version in fallacy files. (The unnatural version seems like it might be the author's own).—

5062:

Lisnabreeny, you are referring to me. I have no problem whatsoever with "the/this/that/these appeal/s to nature". The "ancient" appeal to nature per Annas? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

1777:

To me, those statements all appear to be mistaken and/or delusional. So Pfhorrest, Logicalgregory, and Philogo, if you wouldn't mind please sharing your intentions, I'd very much appreciate it.

3420:

is just an argument with the missing premiss "Whatever is natural is good" (or equivalent). Nothing particularly philosophical or special, just another type of missing premiss argument. —

4942:

Lisnabreeny, I'm sorry but natural kinds have nothing whatsoever to do with what's going on the article's talk page right now and the discussion here hasn't focused on natural kinds either.

5354:

I don't have time to engage in this argument over policy and civility going on here, but a since my comments are being dragged into other people's arguments, I've got a couple of comments:

5148:

It would be a waste of effort for me to work on the article. I consider writing responses exactly like this one to count toward the work I've done for that article. A veritable magnum opus.

4524:

Lisnabreeny, I'm sorry but natural kinds have nothing whatsoever to do with what's going on the article's talk page right now and the discussion here hasn't focused on natural kinds either.

3805:

iv.4. 7709–17). This is why purely accidental conjunctions resist scientific explanation: there are no general relations of form under which they can be subsumed.” — R. J. Hankinson (1997)

3449:(necessarily?? normally??) an invalid logical form. When Lisabreeny brought this issue to WP Philosophy, the article on the appeal to nature appeared to be saying that an appeal to nature 1855:

4. I think that what I said was an accurate reflection of the opinions of Pfhorrest and Logicalgregory, but I will let them clarify their own "intentions" in what they said, if they wish.

2596:

An appeal to nature is a type of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a source of intelligibility for its claims, and which relies on that understanding for its cogency.

1995:

You don't get to make the stuff up. You have to find it in a source. Here's the only one we got, and it's about as broke as broken down gets: "N is natural, therefore N is good or right."

3120:

we might consider, but hitherto I have never heard of the requirement for a truthbearer (proposition/statement/meaningful declarative sentence etc) being meaningful AND intelligible...—

1420:

distinction (individuation), as if distinction were not all or nothing, but I'm overlapping myself. As Mark Twain might say, the curious matter of distinction is very "singular" indeed.

5154:

You put an expert tag on the article and announced that a real expert would have nothing to do with it. Yet, meanwhile, you were clucking about how WPPhilosophy wasn't coming to fix it.

115:

is used with a fairly precise meaning in data base design and systems analysis, but I do not recall it being used by philosophers. Despite this, the conceptual model article is ranked

2672:“intelligibility of such claims, and therefore also their formal validity”. I am not sure that formal validity is dependent on intelligibility. It would seem at first sight that “not ( 2229:

I think that what I said was an accurate reflection of the opinions of Pfhorrest and Logicalgregory, but I will let them clarify their own "intentions" in what they said, if they wish.

4945:

Walkinxyz says he has carte blanch based on this discussion. I don't see that here. I'd just like a simple, candid response regarding the extraordinary claims Walkinxyz is making. OK?

4527:

Walkinxyz says he has carte blanch based on this discussion. I don't see that here. I'd just like a simple, candid response regarding the extraordinary claims Walkinxyz is making. OK?

4400:

In addition, it links to two philosophers who are well-documented critics of different understandings of "nature" (which is discussed in the lead): Bruno Latour and Jacques Derrida.

3011:

It is applicable to arguments such as those the Greeks made (immediately previous to this section), which appeal to nature, human or otherwise, as a source of norms of conduct.

5578:

argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only establishes that its conclusion is probably true.

4435:

of human beings; and therefore (3) that knowledge allows us access to norms of conduct (what we are permitted to say we will become) contained in that understanding of nature.

3197:

In general, validity is a property of inferences, not of single propositions. Truth, meaningfulness, rationality, perhaps "cogency", and the like, can apply to propositions. --

1702:

Logicalgregory, I was falling asleep when I wrote about the paradox. When I woke up I realized the paradox is just the old every whole positive number is ineteresting paradox.

505:

Does any body know how or where one can get/generate a list of high importance, low/stub standard of articles in category Logic/falling under the remit of WikiProject Logic? —

134:

Rank it low on both imporance and quality (it seems to be alot of OR and Synth, and that's coming from a person whose only true expertise is in the specific field of modeling.

2181:(Undid revision 415646678 by Machine Elf 1735 (talk) I did explain this in the notes when I revised the article. I am restoring, with a clear source as to what is meant here.) 5203:

insubstantial, privately published, incoherent source again and again (from weeks past) to get any recognition of its faults from M.E. And they have kept quoting it, in this

3317:

The correctness of this seems frightfully obvious to me, and if people think I'm wrong, then I've stepped into a very Kafka-esque parallel universe where down is the new up.

4530:

Be bold. You've made a pretty good case for dropping the source that says it's 1) a rule of thumb and 2) some people say it's a fallacy of relevance. Other than that, it's

1393:

I think it is not a paradox but the statement "X is not notable" must all ways be false. If you state "X is not notable" then you have noticed X therefore X is notable.--

1027:

Yes, they are trying in a good faith way, but I am not sure this is notable enough to have its own article. No strong opinion at this moment because I'd need more time.--

5420:

presumable all of us contributing to this discussion must hold that the so-called appeal to nature argument is not cogent (because its mp is false) and thefore it is an

2509:

It is you who have been making this war, and refusing to engage with the substance of the discussion. You've only referred me to Knowledge articles that are unsourced...

2237:

Who cares? Maybe we should devote some quality time to your delusions of consensus? I've already addressed how selectively you minded your Ps & Qs on the talk page:

939: 2554:

If you can't get your way, you kick sand in the face of whoever is arguing with you, refusing to grant your "consensus", even when your specific concerns are addressed.

2279:

every time that Machine Elf reverted an edit about "and/or validity" he did it on grounds that I responded to by changing the wording of the article in an original way.

3754:

ii.12. 968–11), but most things are not bearded men. Thus the claim that natural occurrences happen always or for the most part should be glossed something as follows:

2390: 2019:

My words were taken out of context. I most emphatically did not say that I had "identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature".

537: 94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 4797:“None of the references you put above define a concept of "appeal to nature" i do not recall specifically but expect that they all examine multiple appeals to nature” 192:

Further comment on SYNTHiness - "Model" in logic, applied math, and statistics, and "mental model" in cog psych and PoMind is certainly "high" on an importance scale

792: 3061:

which makes validity questionable, so the question shouldn't be implied. And as the dictionary says, it's entirely unclear how it could be both cogent and invalid.

2129:

over here and post about having an edit dispute with me. No announcement on the article's talk page so people would know they can join in. You're first post was: “

5131:

This editor has ignored, dismissed, and misrepresented my inputs from the day he first started editing the article (as a fallacy ref) during the deletion review.”

4901:

But why are you saying I think there can be only one true definition or “definitive section”? Or that we can't quote one? Like the one sitting on the talk page:

4407:

Machine Elf claims that Kompridis' article does not use the words "appeal to nature". But it does explicitly deal with an appeal to nature in the portion cited:

3579:

it is neither valid nor invalid but contingent on the truth of the missing premise. In this case, I find it hard to understand how it can be classed as a fallacy

4962:

As for these ridiculous allegations, that I say I have "carte blanch" about my "extraordinary" (sourced) claims, see the section on "Machine Elf's abuse" here.

4564:

quibbling over "and/or validity" (and the earlier spiking of the intro with a link to stanford.edu/argument#fallacy) is just unilateral pointless edit warring.

3948:

All that said, I do think we should have a source if we are to call appeals to nature informal fallacies, but I don't imagine that such would be hard to find. (

2299:

You are behaving the way that an ignorant bully behaves. If you can't get your way, you kick sand in the face of whoever is arguing with you, refusing to grant

3397:

as a type of argument in ordinary language and philosophy. Not some "clearly formalized" argument. My faith in the direction of up and down has been restored.

142:, 1953, chapter iv). I did mathematics for philosophically reinterpreting "error", not as something to be "minimized", but as something to be "optimized" for 4423:

Is this not referring to an appeal to nature? I see two premises (1,2) and a conclusion (3) that Kompridis explicitly names, (1) that we see (and refer to)

1584:, who has no A-notability, but right now at t=2011, still has lots of B-notability, but it likely wont last for large D because of lack of A-notability (cf 5329:

fallacy section myself. And all you do is try and snip out words and spike the lede with fallacy ref... You should save it for the review now Machine Elf.

2618:

their formal validity, is contingent on our understanding of the particular premises entailed by those claims (although not their particular truth values).

2167:. It's unrelated, but you seem to think Gültigkeit merely appearing, and because it's translated into English as "validity"... it's "an excellence source". 1812:

I would like to think that this isn't a deliberate mischaracterization, but it is certainly an unfair and grossly inaccurate distortion of what I claimed.

2047:

I would like to think that this isn't a deliberate mischaracterization, but it is certainly an unfair and grossly inaccurate distortion of what I claimed.

1940:“After an edifying discussion at WikiProject Philosophy, I have identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature, as 871:

After another revert, the user partially re-reverted again with reference to the discussion in which he however did not take part since the last revert.

4590:

You are perfectly well aware that there are several reliable sources that do a good deal more than "suggest". If you require a dictionary for the word "

1978:

hear is that it's not even clear what you're talking about. I know you have some exotic gnosis about "arguments" ... so I'll cut to the chase: somehow,

2141:

The LAST time, he said explicitly that I should not insert that wording again unless I "source it or forget it"...And I did source it in response, here

1769:

2. that #1 is “a determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity in the lead section of article” (whatever that means); and

5157:

Consider it a challenge to deliver a diff showing your "attempted diplomacy" or "charitable apologies" or whatever you mean about admission of guilt.

2614:

To clarify, I am referring to validity understood as truth claims (or truth-candidacy), and I am saying that the intelligibility of such claims, and

4853: 1725:

Pfhorrest and Logicalgregory, do you both know that according to Walkinxyz you agree the lead of appeal to nature must say "cogency and/or validity"

644:

a fallacy, and to do this they seem to be making original arguments. But this is original research and is against WP Policy. I shall call this the

5019:

which i put when it was discussed in talk, "appeal to nature" is changed to something without essential intelligibility of its own to demonstrate:

4885:“how could we be at the state of saying now, that there is definition of "the concept" somewhere within these refs, without actually being able to 4463:

There's nothing subjective about it. Given Walkinxyz's comments about the content, I think the section should be deleted or substantially revised:

4316:

that #1 is “a determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity in the lead section of article” (whatever that means); and

2720:"That is, that unintelligible sentences have no truth value and, therefore, no place in logic. This may be correct but its a much longer argument." 840:. Someone is allegedly disorganizing the lede with remarks on this and that and keeps editing after reverting a revert without sensible discussion 5514:. For Aristotle, at least, the natural is said of things that are "all or for the most part", and so admits exceptions. In the ancient sense, the 1683:

Dictionaries and thesauruses are a very good way to start an article when no other RS is immediatly at hand, and often lead to finding other RSs.

5099:

Wikipedians concerned with such conflicts please do act. Apologies to everyone else for the racket involved in my attempts to resist such abuse.

4582:

If you'd like to start the "Appeal to X" article please feel free. We've discussed how disruptive it is when you choose to make statements like:

2740:

indeterminate placeholder for a statement, and different from 'q'. (And even in mathematics, it is understood to be a "variable," i.e. something

2536:

based on the work of one of the most influential continental AND one of the most influential American pragmatist philosophers of the 20th century

5361:

Regarding validity, cogency, soundness, and fallacy: these are all properties of arguments or inferences, not of propositions or anything else.

4490:

special label (applied to each case where it is used) or a form of the expression "appeal to x" (applicable to any case where it is meaningful).

2641:

spill whatever we want to into the oceans. Is this argument formally valid, and if so, does that validity have anything to do with the premises?

4255:“My dictionary (Oxford) says that a fallacy is "a mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument". But in that case, how can there be an 2133:

an edifying discussion...” with your phony "consensus"... No doubt if either user explicitly declined, they could expect an argument from you.

5530:

appears to have been coined by Walkinxyz, and so I've challenged its compliance with that policy. This was argued ad nauseum and ad hominem.—

5163:

Lisnabreeny, you are not allowed to call me an "abusive and disruptive wikibully" because frankly, it's not only a lie, it's against policy.

4364: 2576: 292: 47: 17: 4995:

That Kompridis talks about without saying "appeal to nature"? But you just know that's what he means... This isn't the article's talk page.—

283:

article, the section on Moorean absurdity needs expanding, and I was never very good at paraphrasing Wittgenstein's carefully chosen words.

5160:

You've been encouraged to seek out advice. Because we were editing the talk page, rather than the article... there was nothing to moderate.

4648:

Saunders, "Western Philosophical Schools and Doctrines: Ancient and Medieval Schools: Sophists: Particular Doctrines: Theoretical issues",

4618:-No. What would that make me if said i knew of no sources which defined it as a concept, but i actually did? I am not that kind of person. 2633:

First of all, is this argument formally valid? And if so, does no part of the understanding of nature bear on the validity of the argument?

5526:

than what one might think today... my only point of contention has been that we need to cite a source rather than a talk page. The phrase

5373:

Cogency is concerned not with form at all but with the truth of premises: an argument is cogent if and only if all its premises are true.

2122:

thread on the talk page were I've given you reason after reason. Nothing even dampened your conviction that you are 100% right on target.

1527:

notable. The problem is that if a statement X qualifies as notable under Def B then people (mistakenly) apply the connotation from Def A.

3726:, admits they couldn't be bothered to figure out Moore's naturalistic fallacy, and IMO, the lax standard is evident because that's just 779:

In Hobbes' "table of absurdity" propositions are called "absurd," "insignificant," or "senseless". Anyone have knoweldge about this for

5376:

Soundness is the combination of cogency and validity: an argument is sound if and only if its premises are true and its form is proper.

5015:"Linsabreeny, I think it is a concept. Any source that discusses several "appeals to nature" is construing it or constructing as such." 4251:“Logicalgregory indeed "advised" me not to go there, but I wasn't seeking advice, I was seeking an opinion. And even he agreed with me” 581:

state of how things were, should be, or how they are normally: in this sense an appeal to reason may resemble an appeal to tradition."

4959:

Linsabreeny, I think it is a concept. Any source that discusses several "appeals to nature" is construing it or constructing as such.

4191:

excuse is that it's natural, then what they're saying is baseless” but why should "natural" have even less clout than "supernatural"?—

1818:

3. Let me be clear – every time that Machine Elf reverted an edit about "and/or validity" he did it on grounds that I responded to by

196:, but are these all ever called "conceptual models"? That said, the article is a good place to SYNTH hang various nonphysical models. 4157:

which seems to use the word "logic" non-rigorously. (But nobody's ever claimed "appeal to nature" is a proper fallacy in real logic).

4108:

Y are not to be confused with arguments whose conclusions are "X is good". "Good for X" is a different kettle of fish to "Good." —

2190:(Please see discussion on WIkiProject:Philosophy for clarification of meaning's relationship to validity in non-formalized arguments) 4123:

bad style. If the claim that appeal to nature is a fallacy in rhetoric rather than logic most of the discussions above dissipate. --

2218:(OK, this is actually better. The content needn't be normative or ethical, it could be anything (e.g. epistemological, ontological)) 4615:"You are perfectly well aware that there are several reliable sources that do a good deal more than "suggest" (it as "a concept")." 4438:

Two premises (about our nature) and a conclusion based on those premises. A description (and a refutation) of an appeal to nature.

3812: 3596:

isolated ecosystem, being natural (to it) entails familiarity/integration/stability with it, with no extraneous premiss required.

2771:? If validity is always secondary to meaning we can not say that something is meaningless by virtue of its logical form alone. -- 439: 3713:

Philogos, one can't suggest "Whatever is natural is good" as a missing premise if she thinks it fails, much less entertain it's

2967:

Are you suggesting that the question of validity has no place in an assessment of appeals to nature? I think their logical form

2840:

I think "cogency" works better by itself. Including "and/or validity" obscures its meaning and that of the statement as a whole.

2733:

Yes, it is correct, unless you are talking about the specific logic of computer languages or mathematics, in which case meaning

2090:

Denial... Telling stories and playing word games must be fun but please spare me or produce a diff and blow as hard as you like.

1868:

Because I understand something that isn't your area of philosophical interest, which you're not inclined to examine thoroughly?

178:

Thanks for the comment PPdd. I think we need to wait to see if there are any more comments before making further changes here.--

3740:

I think people have forgotten the merits that distinguish an appeal to nature from an appeal to custom/religion/authority/etc:

1081:

must adopt that self-contradicting ambiguity. When I recommended the editor would benefit from reading the validity section in

5196:

Also, Machine Elf wrote:"Be bold. You've made a pretty good case for dropping the source that says it's 1) a rule of thumb.. "

5069:

about your difficulty finding non-WP-derivative sources for the argument/fallacy. However, I did a search and had better luck.

3231:

What I meant was "A truth-bearer (or truth "candidate") may not have to be intelligible in itself, but in order to establish

5661:

Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments commit fallacies in addition to formal fallacies.

5388:

informal one, then that affects the cogency, and thus soundness, of arguments using it, but not necessarily their validity.

5379:

Fallacy is the opposite of soundness: an argument is fallacious if any of its premises are false or if its form is improper.

3987:

The article could use more editing, but of course i do hope i can make you reconsider your idea that it is about a fallacy.

2156:

to cite a source before revert #4. Keep trying. Maybe pick a source that has something like a definition or introduction to

1923:

Don't play games, it's easy enough to check a diff. But you're not playing games are you? You're accusing me of abusing you.

3497:

But "Bob is a bachelor. Therefore, Bob is unmarried" also contains a hidden premise namely "all bachelors are unmarried"--

1721:

I don't know where to bring this up, but my words and actions have been the subject of misrepresentation by Machine Elf.

2494:

Why would I challenge Pfhorrest or Logicalgregory? Hypothetically, say I grant that, and noncontradiction; now you grant

1805:

of my "identifying" (pointing out) that "the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature" is "

1785:

say that I had "identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature". What I said was:

1217:

would be very useful. The problem is that there do not seem to be any notable sources on the “concept of notability”. --

335: 5212:

can be taken as a rule of thumb, rather than a fallacy, there's probably no need for a word of caution about so-called

3050:

can be taken as a rule of thumb, rather than a fallacy, there's probably no need for a word of caution about so-called

2444:

So what I suggest is that this article be deleted and replaced with a stub-class article that says something like this:

3671:

Philogo, I think you meant to say "whether something is good because it is natural, or natural because it is good". --

1290:

Putting a a notability tag on the notability article makes me feel that I have just walked into a Franz Kafka novel.--

970:

In my opinion the page is much better now and avoids the problems I was concerned with in my posting on the subject.--

5026:"Annas distinguishes between two sorts of (ancientconceptx) that she thinks the Greek theorists in general make...." 4585:“There is no source defining it as "a concept". There is one suggesting "the appeal to nature" in classical greece.” 1580:, which is not worthy of notice, so it is not A-notible, but it got noticed, so it is B-notbale. Another example is 5781: 5535: 5444: 5299: 5271: 5175: 5077: 5000: 4928: 4679: 4606: 4539: 4475: 4196: 3831: 3074: 2933: 2265: 1110: 1032: 817: 803: 38: 2260:

Obviously, I didn't say you did. I don't pretend to know what motivates you, maybe it's just a competency issue.—

1839:

The source that I quoted was a quote about the relationship of everyday understanding to "validity," as follows:

1600:, where t is either the point in time of notice, or the duration of notice (the latter of which also relates to 953:

page, and it would be great if an experienced editor could review it and possibly remove the clean-up template.

4774:

You can tell everyone at ANI how I don't make you follow enough rules and/or too many rules; why you ought-not

4128: 3717:. Rather, taking it as a rule of thumb, where applicable, seems more reasonable. (Adolf Hitler need not apply). 3662: 3502: 3483:

Break down what unnatural means in the context of the cave, breakdown what is a risk to the cave's biology...

3473: 3458: 3155: 2776: 2704: 1944:

determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity in the lead section of this article.

1775:

4. Walkinxyz's actions are “a reflection of the consensus” and “a consequent addition of relevant information”

1550: 1398: 1357: 1330: 1295: 1222: 975: 880: 857: 742: 672: 566: 444: 253: 183: 124: 5785: 5732: 5707: 5539: 5494: 5467: 5448: 5433: 5401: 5338: 5303: 5275: 5249: 5179: 5108: 5081: 5049: 5004: 4973: 4932: 4748: 4683: 4636: 4610: 4573: 4543: 4519: 4479: 4449: 4200: 4187:

To paraphrase how one person (not here) rationalized A2N as an "informal fallacy", they figure: “if someone's

4132: 4117: 4093: 4067: 4042: 3996: 3969: 3835: 3680: 3666: 3643: 3628: 3609: 3590: 3563: 3541: 3506: 3492: 3477: 3462: 3429: 3406: 3369: 3326: 3206: 3192: 3159: 3129: 3078: 3020: 2937: 2815: 2780: 2754: 2708: 2664: 2344: 2328: 2269: 1890: 1711: 1692: 1678: 1634: 1613: 1554: 1517: 1493: 1461: 1429: 1402: 1387: 1361: 1334: 1314: 1299: 1285: 1252: 1226: 1160: 1114: 1068: 1036: 1021: 994: 979: 965: 903: 887: 864: 821: 807: 768: 746: 718: 676: 631: 600: 570: 550: 514: 494: 480: 463: 413: 392: 377: 362: 265: 223: 205: 187: 173: 128: 4021:

The article does not define hidden premise, but does "hidden assumption", which is interesting if accurate...

2688:

is unintelligible the argument is useless, but some would still want to call it valid. You could argue that

1449: 1167: 2568:

So it's obvious what you get out of WIkipedia… you want to win something. I can't say that I'm the same way.

1771:

3.that Walkinxyz is not even responsible for so much as a “"reversion"”, much less a slow edit war, because

1178: 561:

which is itself more of a theory than an established fallacy. People at WP philosophy should look at this.--

4832: 4674:

I asked you nicely Lisnabreeny. Regarding "wp:directives", I insist that you follow policy and guidelines.—

4667:

Eudaimonism and the Appeal to Nature in the Morality of Happiness: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research

4322:

Walkinxyz's actions are “a reflection of the consensus” and “a consequent addition of relevant information”

3445:. However, to go back to the beginning of this discussion, I think it is clear that an appeal to nature is 2900:

Apart from that, it's a concept in philosophy going back to ancient Greece where, according to Julia Annas

2196:

I've never once asked you for clarification... I know validity isn't defined for non-formalized arguments.

1662:

Further defs can be proposed using considerations of objective vs. relative, and various kinds of relative.

3727: 2901: 1674: 737:

article the various writers seem to be going into areas that are not covered by Moore and his followers.--

4319:

that Walkinxyz is not even responsible for so much as a “"reversion"”, much less a slow edit war, because

4150: 3750:

not for the most part hot and summery…). The frequencies are relative frequencies: most men have beards (

1352:

Nice one PPdd. But if we try to list all the paradoxes of notability will we end up with article creep?--

5777: 5728: 5703: 5531: 5463: 5440: 5334: 5295: 5267: 5245: 5171: 5104: 5073: 5045: 4996: 4924: 4902: 4744: 4675: 4642: 4632: 4602: 4569: 4535: 4515: 4471: 4259:

fallacy if validity and soundness are properties of formal arguments alone? The answer is, they aren't.”

4192: 4063: 4038: 3992: 3827: 3624: 3605: 3559: 3488: 3070: 2929: 2340: 2261: 1106: 1028: 990: 813: 799: 546: 373: 3960:, and just removing the adjective "fallacious" if we can't find a source for that, would help a lot. -- 358: 5476:

It appears from the above (corrrect me if I am wrong) that neither Andrew Lancaster, nor Lisnabreeny

4805:

So I agreed with you that the 'fallacy source' is substandard; and then you turn around and insist it

4313:

Walkinxyz has "identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature";

4305:

slide, even thought it claimed the discussion was over and the following consensus had been reached:

3653:. My position is that all logically truths are stipulative or derived from stipulations. For example, 618:

missing premises (i.e those arguments with missing premises wehere the missing premiss is of the form

5765: 4165: 3953: 3949: 2844: 1407:

I would write LOL, but since I actually read your remark and chuckled out loud, it seems inadequate.

249: 4173: 3393:

Thank you, Pfhorrest. That is a very helpful explication. In this context, we are talking about the

689:(b) the so-called appeal to nature fallacy is, as argued above, a token of the naturalistic fallacy 605:

If we take the naturalistic fallacy (and I admit it's been a LONG time since I studied it) to be a

5397: 5137:

Well, if you produce a diff, I would discuss it with you at the article's talk page. Otherwise, be

4969: 4445: 4124: 3965: 3957: 3676: 3658: 3600:

concept of 'natural selection' which goes some way to revealing/formulating how nature has worked.

3581:. If on the other hand it IS a fallacy, then so is every other argument with a missing premiss. — 3574: 3537: 3498: 3469: 3454: 3453:

an example of invalid logical form, which is why I thought something needed to be done about it.--

3402: 3365: 3360:

argument's validity: you know that argument is valid without knowing or caring what P or Q mean. --

3322: 3202: 3151: 3016: 2811: 2772: 2750: 2700: 2660: 2324: 1886: 1546: 1394: 1353: 1326: 1291: 1218: 1156: 1017: 1005: 971: 961: 899: 872: 849: 765: 738: 668: 596: 562: 449: 427: 388: 179: 120: 5723:

and ages spend so much time on arguments of a type which could sensibly be labelled as a fallacy?

5527: 3801:

not, Aristotle thinks, in general susceptible of formulation in terms of some further generality (

2544: 354: 4427:(human beings) as "machines whose components are biochemicals"; (2) that we therefore presume we 1929:

Here's what you posted to the talk page after revert #3. I've highlighted the part you left out:

1489: 1273: 1009: 4390: 4184:

make sense... I anticipate they'll do for "logic" what tabloid–skeptics have done for "science".

1194:

2) What, if any, are the logical or epistemological connections between notability and truth?

1008:. I've been uneasy about its existence as a stand-alone article (rather than as a small part of 4912:, not just “casual debate” for the article so unless your research wasn't as exhaustive as you 4031:

to be natural to a natural system entails having been involved in its natural selection process

1789:

I have identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature ,

919:, which had a picture puzzle to try to find hidden things in a drawing. An adult version is at 5490: 5429: 4368: 4113: 4089: 3745:“‘By contrast, the natural processes of the world happen either always or for the most part’ ( 3639: 3586: 3425: 3188: 3125: 3065: 2495: 1670: 1272:

lists, like what happened when "logical positivism vanished in a puff of logic" vanished from

1142:

under discussion here, I have provided further explanations and references. See the talk page

1064: 714: 627: 510: 490: 459: 3263:

To answer whether "X is logically prior to Y" we must agree what we mean by "logically prior"

119:

on the WP Philosophy importance scale. Suggestions and comments would be most welcome here.--

5724: 5699: 5523: 5459: 5330: 5241: 5100: 5041: 4740: 4628: 4565: 4511: 4464: 4375: 4372: 4351: 4279: 4233: 4059: 4034: 3988: 3819: 3620: 3601: 3555: 3484: 3394: 2989: 2925: 2917: 2589: 2526: 2336: 1765:

1. "identified the particular understanding of nature that is used in an appeal to nature";

1269: 1125: 1094: 1078: 986: 950: 761: 734: 542: 526: 369: 319: 315: 157: 108: 913:

There was a children's monthly magazine in pediatric dentists' and doctors' offices called

5138: 4783: 4161: 3041:

I don't see whereas validity is especially pertinent, no. What could be addressed is that

1098: 350: 135: 5663:

It is these “informal fallacies” that are most often described by guides to good thinking

1508:

to provoke notice. That is true, but I doubt it will go over big with Wiki deletionists.

1374:

The "Paradox of Notablity" - If notability is being worthy of notice, and if someting is

138:

used "map" in a similar manner as the article uses "model" (empirical theories as maps -

5170:

I'll second your motion, admins "concerned with such conflicts please do act" and hope.—

4627:

saying, take it up, stop accusing me of dishonesty and telling me to take it elsewhere.

4459:

I don't just "claim" that Kompridis' article does not use the words "appeal to nature",

3765:

general Aristotle is concerned with the holding of properties by individuals, and hence:

1986:

that I've been challenging all along: "and/or validity". What an incredible coincidence.

1825:

The LAST time, he said explicitly that I should not insert that wording again unless I "

5665:, and that are the primary concern of most critical thinking courses and of this site." 5393: 5151:

Yes, I told you to keep your opinions about what you think I need to learn to yourself.

4965: 4441: 4411:"When we regard ourselves as 'machines whose components are biochemicals,' we not only 4346: 4169: 3961: 3672: 3533: 3398: 3361: 3318: 3198: 3012: 2848: 2807: 2746: 2656: 2469:

Linsabreeny agrees with me on the article talk page itself, so you're the only one out.

2320: 1992:

the policy is not optional, regardless of what you thought you wheedled out of someone.

1882: 1707: 1688: 1630: 1609: 1513: 1457: 1435: 1425: 1383: 1346: 1310: 1281: 1248: 1240: 1213:

Given the importance of notability in Knowledge it seems that an article on notability

1152: 1013: 957: 935: 927: 895: 788: 592: 476: 409: 384: 331: 288: 261: 219: 201: 169: 2951:

Including "and/or validity" obscures its meaning and that of the statement as a whole.

5753: 5230: 5164: 5066: 4984: 4779: 4775: 4494: 2852: 1585: 1485: 1439: 1143: 1090: 1056: 1052: 471:

Are my last three posts immediately above better put in the logic tasks force pages?

211: 143: 4341:

One more thing, unless it would be inappropriate, I'm going to forward Walkinxyz's

5486: 5425: 4909: 4498: 4367:

that there is undue weight to Kompridis. He noticed that I've worked on Kompridis'

4287: 4109: 4085: 3773:(N*) if it is natural for Fs to be Gs, then Fs are always, or for the most part, Gs 3635: 3582: 3554:

I wrote more, but am putting it under the 'appeal to nature' heading for neatness.

3421: 3184: 3121: 2924:

as opposed to nature in general, but I wonder if the article shouldn't present the

2383: 2102: 2098: 2094: 1983: 1581: 1378:

worthy of notice, but it cannot help but be noticed, is it notable or not notable?

1060: 710: 623: 506: 486: 455: 4579:

able to address them at this time, if you'd be so kind as to allow me Lisnabreeny?

4338:

if you wouldn't mind please sharing your intentions, I'd very much appreciate it.

4278:

with the words "cogent and/or validity"; and insert those words into the lead of

2115:

edit warring. And you've burned through an obscene amount of my time. There is a

1815:

2. See above for the full context of my statement. Again, a mischaracterization.

1188:

is a concept suitable for philosophical examination. Here are just a few issues:

5757: 4283: 3651:

it is contingently true that “all bachelors are unmarried men is logically true”

3112: 1989: 1577: 1412: 1408: 1236: 1086: 536:

I apologise for this, i seem to be having trouble getting this article reviewed:

161: 146: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5774:

arguing that such sources should be excluded on the basis of my comments above.

2370:... so you have a source but what? You won't provide it? Same result then. You 1926:

Those allegations end right now (and keep that crap out of the edit summaries).

4919:

What's with the (Shatner-esque) (way)(you keep) (typing)(appeal to) (nature)?

1174: 529:, i am thinking of a new article called the "appeal to wikipedia philosophy": 400:

If you have ever been to a tea ceremony, you likely noticed that teaism is an

245: 244:

article, and could use help on a section regarding "absurdity constraints" re

153: 4722:

You insist i follow the guidlines which you find convienient, and a lot more.

2063:

See above for the full context of my statement. Again, a mischaracterization.

685:(a) the naturalistic fallacy as construed in my former comment is a fallacy, 5224: 1703: 1684: 1626: 1605: 1509: 1453: 1421: 1379: 1342: 1306: 1277: 1266: 1244: 931: 920: 915: 845: 841: 784: 780: 472: 405: 327: 323: 284: 280: 272: 257: 241: 240:

I don't know if this is the right WProject for this, but I just started the

215: 197: 165: 149: 2364:

Illiterate? Nice. 4 diffs for the grounds on which I reverted your reverts.

1971:“I think a lot of it depends on the type of argument you're talking about.” 1809:

determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity.

894:

Is it any wonder that there's a dispute about love? Is that even news? ;-)

4778:

or why I ought to inconvenience myself to police you; why I deserve these

4591: 2307:

are addressed. So it's obvious what you get out of WIkipedia… you want to

1822:. I have not been "edit warring" but responding to criticism. EVERY TIME. 4809:

a fallacy; and now you're complaining about how I was "insisting" we use

4383: 4002: 2909: 2293: 2285: 1795:

determining factor ("among others") in determining an argument's validity

1144:

Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph

1082: 1057:

Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph

1053:

Talk:Argument#World-disclosing arguments : proposed deletion of paragraph

1048: 4330:

To me, those statements all appear to be mistaken and/or delusional. So

2356:

Knowledge articles most certainly can and must contain original wording.

908: 5485:(if we accept Pfhorrest's account of the use of that term.) Yes? No? — 4393:, and probably know his ideas as intimately as anyone besides himself. 3655:

in this essay I shall take the word “bachelor” to mean “unmarried man”.

2859:), we have only one source that gives a generic form for the argument: 2856: 2252:

I gain nothing financially through my work, this is a volunteer effort.

1669:

OED: "Noteworthiness, distinction, prominence; an instance of this." --

4497:

to see if they should appear in the article, this Stanford edu article

1181:, and we all know what an important and controversial issue that is. 1043:

Argument#"World-disclosing" arguments - proposed deletion of paragraph

5614:

distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak”.

5167:. That you've taken the opportunity to do so here, speaks for itself. 4379: 4012:

because there is a missing premise the supply of which would make it

2093:

When you say "in an original way" is that how you're describing your

1102: 346: 5411:

As a matter of interest does any editor involved in this discussion

949:

Hi everyone, I've just cleaned up, re-organized and copy-edited the

774: 5698:) which do not describe it or anything like it, in the talk page. 4232:

do you both know that according to Walkinxyz you agree the lead of

2314:

I can't say that I'm the same way. That isn't what "motivates" me.

1051:

does not enhance the article amd should be deleted - see talk page

909:

Children's hide-and-seek picture books, and esoteric areas of logic

709:. A redirect would refer readers from the former to the latter. — 5696: 4903:

Talk:Appeal to nature#Julia Annas - the "ancient" appeal to nature

4290:, etc., not to mention my objections on that talk page and here?) 4177: 2502:

source, you could just drop it. Don't argue ad hominem ad nauseum.

1210:

6) Does it make sense to say that the Cretan was a notable liar?

368:

Yeah! It could not be more philosophical than just philosophical.

3762:(N) if q is natural, then given p, always or for the most part q, 2476:

Oh! Why didn't you say so? He'll write another screed if I don't.

1872:

would that prejudice my contributions as a conflict of interest?

1207:

5) Does notable mean anything more than famous; and if so, what?

697:

is a token of a fallacy, i.e it is an example or instance of the

4789:

I don't know what you're saying but hey, it's all good, right?

837: 830: 322:, but that is all I remember. Can anyone help with this for the 4389:

Disclosure: I was a student of Kompridis, who was a student of

2210:

Serious lack of clue about OR but I don't see "original way" ?

1781:

1. My words were taken out of context. I most emphatically did

1093:

and assume the philosophers were in a whimsical mood, but as a

4916:, who knows what the future may bring? Thanks for the advice. 4829: 4397:

the article – 4 short paragraphs with 3 different references.

1946:

Please note, that this is not an "edit war" or a "reversion",

1901:

validity in an ordinary language argument, phrased as follows:

1177:, just a disambiguation page. There is, of course, a page on 1085:, they promptly inserted their POV in that article. I haven't 107:

I undertook some restructuring and made some additions to the

25: 5097:

I find him to be an abusive and disruptive wikibully frankly.

3107:)) would be said to be a logical valid argument form, and if 2149:

Not the first time I've said it... just not in so many words.

923:, where some things are overt, and likely to be deleted, like 5424:

if we accept Pfhorrest's account of the use of that term. —

4417:

permits us to answer the question of what is to become of us

2039:

And the rest is, what? trying to weasel out of your reverts?

160:

as something to be made optimally close to probablistically

4160:

The confusion about what to call the field seems to span: "

4470:

Thanks in advance for both comments and advice everybody.—

924: 4663:(and presumably the one you want me to read is relevant?) 2767:)) is invalid we first have to understand the meaning of 2071:

Pathetic, save yourself some typing and just post diffs:

1235:

is a speedy deletion. (note: I'm the editor who put the "

298:

Absurdity constants, Suppes, Church, and Currie's paradox

5122:

I'll pass on opining about your characteristic comments.

4005:

to clarify the position on missing and hidden premises:

1484:, regardless of normative considerations such as worth. 5748: 4913: 4342: 4302: 4237: 4176:" and, believe it or not, they seem to think the name " 4054:

denominator except that the concept of nature features.

3979:

featured in reviewed text. The term "appeal to nature"

2395: 2240: 2214: 2200: 2186: 2177: 2072: 1932: 1915: 1833: 1826: 1233: 5325:

phrased as a challenge to ancient a.t.n but an origin.

4104:

Perhaps; but an arguments whose conclusions are X is

2288:), which I think based on the discussion on this page 1820:

changing the wording of the article in an original way

1151:

It's a fringe challenge to which well-defined terms?

836:

There is a small dispute going on over at the article

557:

anywhere. Perhaps I too was getting confused with the

5266:

I'll see you on the article's talk page Lisnabreeny.—

4363:

I'll open it up, since Machine Elf suggested over at

1596:

of B-notability, or about choice of t in B-notability

271:

Help needed with Wittgenstein and Moore's paradox in

5631:

An example of a strong inductive argument would be:

5240:

not seeming to care about anything but instruction.

3235:

validity, we will need to make sense of it somehow.

2801:

We have to understand the meaning of "p" at minimum

2292:, and then you complain when I revise that article ( 1801:"In the lead section of this article" refers to the 1748:

to the argument's validity, inasmuch as the meaning

5563:I couldn't follow you Philogo, until i found this: 5223:to Machine Elfs argument here, is fallacyfiles.org 4594:", please avail yourself of the link to wiktionary. 2588:I am having a dispute with Machine Elf over on the 775:

Hobbes' "Table of Absurdity" & Phil of Language

5752:the one and only source offered later was at best 5634:(1) Every day to date the law of gravity has held. 5522:is in reference to something more akin to Plato's 2904:the ‘“ancient” appeal to nature’ was an appeal to 1954:and a consequent addition of relevant information. 654:The Knowledge can classify all new academic work. 651:The Knowledge shall contain no original research. 5418:the natural is necessarily (or contingently) good 4270:agree validity and soundness are defined for "an 2626:of nature and it would be disrespectful to do so. 2160:... Does that seem like an abusive demand to you? 1624:The t is in Knowledge's subscripts is very small. 210:I once said that mathematicians are like fashion 4897:Funny thing about philosophers who write books, 4413:presume to know what our nature permits us to be 4274:fallacy" and that Walkinxyz should express that 3573:then an argument with a missing premiss. And as 2832:So as not to confuse the issue, (and because it 1652:Def2 W-notability = worthiness of being noticed. 1443:asked me what perception of mathematical beauty 660:The act of classification is original research. 657:Some new academic work has not been classified. 525:In lieu of the outcome of the review process of 302:I recall something about "absurdity constants" ( 4786:problem way too much, but I'm not your mother. 3441:Therefore, an argument can be made to say that 1956:Walkinxyz (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)” 1860:and it's not my area of philosophical interest. 3807:Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought 3720:The author at fallacyfile.org, the source for 2459:Walkinxyz (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 1910:Stop editing out the parts that embarrass you! 1750:tacitly functions as a premise in the argument 1659:= amount actually noticed at t for duration D. 1128:must adopt that self-contradicting ambiguity." 1004:I'm wondering if we can get some eyes over on 4983:The "Machine Elf's abuse" language ends now. 4534:it's a just plain old concept in philosophy.— 4101:natural selection is good for natural systems 4027:natural selection is good for natural systems 4025:expand when heated" The 'missing premise' is 3723:"U is unnatural, therefore U is bad or wrong" 2603:and/or validity…" but Machine Elf disagrees. 8: 4734:philosophy (appeal to) (nature), that there 3733:"N in natural, therefore N is good or right" 1850:Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action 1759:Machine Elf also states, incorrectly, that: 1746:yes, the meaning of the propositions matters 312:Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science 270: 3416:Am I missing something? It seemed to me an 3064:I know you're doing some extensive work on 2584:The logical priority of meaning to validity 2111:On account of those 3 ridiculous words you 1963:You even deny "reversion"... precious much? 1649:Def1 C-notability = capacity to be noticed. 1341:notability may help with that question. :) 1124:"The editor began by insisting the lead of 5642:(2) The law of gravity will hold tomorrow. 4782:here and now.... I confess, I ignore your 4008:wp:argument states -"Often an argument is 2003:Machine Elf also states, incorrectly, that 1852:, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, 19-20.) 1261:I just put a {{Notability}} tag on it, so 1077:The editor began by insisting the lead of 798:I think I can dig something up for this.-- 577:and the word "natural" with "reasonable". 2391:WP:Articles for deletion/Appeal to nature 1434:PS re LOL - I just started an article on 1276:in a puff of WikiLogic, but made BJAODN. 140:The Philosophy of Science:An Introduction 5511: 4597:I fail to see how objecting to “cogency 4238:Talk:Appeal to nature 10:49, 24 February 3443:invalidity is logically prior to meaning 2655:Can someone please help us out? Thanks. 2241:20:51, 25 February 2011 Machine Elf 1735 1916:20:51, 25 February 2011 Machine Elf 1735 1055:. Opinions of other editors invited at 1047:I have suggested that the new paragraph 4440:What do others think? Undue weight? – 3134:Philogo didn't you mean to write (not ( 2055:That makes me sick. You got some nerve. 1952:I think has been reached on this issue, 1191:1) Is notability absolute or relative? 1105:article would be more than sufficient? 1101:weight, and perhaps a few words in the 445:Discuss the WikiProject Logic Task List 3950:Google shows several promising results 1097:challenge to well defined terms, it's 728:a fallacy. I want to reserve the term 450:Update the WikiProject Logic Task List 436:Task List by adding {{LogicTasksBox}}. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4956:developments section for discussion. 4461:his article does not use those words. 4299:wants to be dragged into something... 2908:nature. According to Britannica, the 1049:Argument#"World-disclosing" arguments 842:Talk:Love#The inclusion of capitalism 485:I think they are OK where they are. 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy 7: 4465:Appeal to nature#Modern developments 2525:I didn't have to show you anything, 2389:Here's your “original writing” from 1797:in the lead section of this article. 1197:3) Does notability fall foul of the 236:Absurdity constraints and metamodels 4236:must say "cogency and/or validity" 2027:What are you even saying it means? 2011:Walkinxyz also denies, incorrectly, 1523:already provoked notice then it is 1268:is becoming an entry in one of the 4361:“== Undue weight to Kompridis? == 2097:? Because I usually describe your 1912:You do the same on the talk page: 24: 4899:they loves them some definitions. 2928:prior to it at any rate? Thanks.— 2806:be part of the validity-testing. 2684:is unintelligible. Of course, if 2561:But what do you do for an encore? 2543:Apparently, no one on Earth says 1832:And I did source it in response, 1173:There is no Knowledge article on 755:Looking for input on article name 667:Is there really a paradox here?-- 4347:conflict of interest noticeboard 4266:Am I to assume that these users 926:regarding the absurdity rule in 29: 4837:‘Nature’ is for the Greeks just 4415:, but also that this knowledge 3057:There's nothing peculiar to an 2759:So in order to establish that ( 2163:You can't just reach for your 1265:the worst that can happen to it 1232:The worst that can happen to it 762:Talk:W. V. Quine#Requested move 4293:I went out on limb an assumed 2868:Therefore, N is good or right. 2680:))” is formally valid even if 2290:don't even contradict my edits 521:Appeal to Knowledge Philosophy 1: 5495:21:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 5468:17:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 5449:12:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 5434:06:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 5402:05:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 5339:23:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 5304:22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 5276:05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 5250:22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 5199:I have had to criticise that 5180:05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 5109:18:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 5082:05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 5050:18:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 5005:17:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 4974:09:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 4933:04:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 4749:01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 4684:01:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 4641:Here's 3 you've discussed on 4637:00:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 4611:23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 4574:22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 4544:21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 4520:13:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 4480:12:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 4450:11:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 4201:07:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 4133:02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 4118:02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 4094:02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 4068:06:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 4043:18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 3997:06:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 3970:04:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 3836:20:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 3681:04:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 3667:04:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 3644:02:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 3629:02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 3610:23:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 3591:22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 3564:19:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 3542:06:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 3527:human beings ought to remain 3507:05:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 3493:04:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 3478:03:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 3463:03:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 3430:02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 3407:23:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 3370:07:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 3327:04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 3207:03:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 3193:01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 3160:03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 3130:02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 3079:09:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 3021:01:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2938:10:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 2888:Therefore, U is bad or wrong. 2816:05:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2781:02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2755:00:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2709:07:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 2665:04:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 2345:16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 2329:08:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 2270:17:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 1982:boils down to the exact same 1891:10:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 1712:03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 1693:03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 1679:18:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1635:06:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 1614:06:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 1555:05:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 1518:03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 1494:17:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1462:06:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1430:06:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1403:05:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1388:05:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1362:05:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC) 1335:03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 1315:04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1300:06:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1286:04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1253:04:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1227:03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1204:4) Is notability transitive? 1161:08:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 1115:08:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1069:02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1037:13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 1022:05:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 995:19:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 980:02:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC) 966:23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC) 940:21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 904:00:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 888:17:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 865:13:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 822:12:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 808:09:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 793:21:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 769:04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 747:16:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC) 719:15:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC) 677:04:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC) 632:15:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 601:20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 571:09:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 515:02:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC) 495:16:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 481:14:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 464:14:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 414:15:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 393:20:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 336:05:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 293:04:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 266:03:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 224:03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 206:02:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 188:02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 174:16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 129:11:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 4843:The ancient appeal to nature 4180:" is up for grabs. Rhetoric 4029:(and perhaps to connect it - 2992:is applicable to the appeal 2920:is applicable to the appeal 2843:It's different from Moore's 2426:=== Input from Walkinxyz === 2303:"consensus", even when your 1739:To which Pfhorrest replied: 551:22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 383:Is there a tea project yet? 378:18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 363:03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 3809:, pp.136–9, (pdf pp.113–5). 2990:Modern developments section 2918:Modern developments section 1950:reflection of the consensus 1865:years studying this stuff? 1717:Alleged consensus (renamed) 1482:capable of provoking notice 538:View AfD - Appeal to nature 428:WikiProject Logic Task List 5806: 5566:www.logicalfallacies.info 4620:I know of no such sources. 4493:I have been reading about 4332:Pfhorrest, Logicalgregory, 4155:very new pedagogical field 310:) in relations to Suppes' 5786:03:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 5733:02:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 5708:01:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 5540:01:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 5528:"cogency and/or validity" 5518:and of human nature, the 4867:The Morality of Happiness 4858: 4657:The Morality of Happiness 3826:can hardly be dismissed.— 3822:, that it's for the best 3418:appeal to nature argument 2926:Rational argument section 2545:"cogency and/or validity" 2125:Then after all that, you 440:Discuss WikiProject Logic 4730:the defintive section ?? 4650:Encyclopaedia Britannica 2397:20:49, 10 February 2011 1370:"The Notability Paradox" 695:appeal to nature fallacy 254:Model-driven engineering 5145:but that got old quick. 3824:in some compelling way, 2592:page. The lead states: 2378:make it more vague, it 2374:remove words, and that 2215:07:58, 17 February 2011 2201:11:40, 19 February 2011 2187:23:43, 22 February 2011 2178:08:32, 24 February 2011 1933:23:56, 22 February 2011 1478:worthy of being noticed 1450:Notability (philosophy) 1199:Argument from Authority 1179:Notability in Knowledge 1168:Notability (philosophy) 297: 4889:the defintive section” 4421: 4365:Wikiproject Philosophy 4282:regardless of policy ( 3728:denying the antecedent 2608:Here is my reasoning: 2598: 2029:You most emphatically 1846: 1827:source it or forget it 1779: 846:Talk:Love#Recent edits 156:model selection using 4846:is an appeal to what 4643:Talk:Appeal to nature 4409: 4371:(a lonely task), and 4343:latest talk page post 4303:22-Feb talk page post 4301:So I let Walkinxyz's 3803:Generation of Animals 2594: 2109:You are edit warring. 1980:the entire paragraph, 1879:Come off it, please. 1876:refers to his stuff. 1841: 1761: 1184:It occurs to me that 648:. It goes like this: 250:model transformations 42:of past discussions. 5766:fallacy of relevance 5760:failure is now moot. 4558:argument from nature 4431:something about the 4166:Argumentation theory 3954:appeal to popularity 3818:That the natural is 2988:I'm not sure if the 2916:I'm not sure if the 2847:. In the context of 2845:naturalistic fallacy 1618:Note re B-notability 1239:" at the top of the 699:naturalistic fallacy 646:Wikipedians' Paradox 559:Naturalistic Fallacy 5747:With Lisnabreeny's 5596:deductive validity. 3958:appeal to authority 3798:Posterior Analytics 3752:Posterior Analytics 2033:say that, in those 1476:does not only mean 1138:As for the article 1006:Science of morality 1000:Science of morality 5573:Informal Fallacies 3619:of completeness? 2368:“Original wording” 2152:Bravo for finally 1968:When Philogo says 1848:(Jürgen Habermas, 1744:Q In that sense, 1411:(I just wrote the 1274:logical positivism 1010:Ethical naturalism 707:naturalist fallacy 111:article. The term 5749:changes yesterday 5214:logical fallacies 4878: 4877: 3111:is replaced by a 3066:Nikolas Kompridis 3052:logical fallacies 2521:you're to blame!! 2496:Template:Citation 2305:specific concerns 1655:Def3 A-notability 705:into the article 609:of fallacy which 422:WikiProject Logic 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5797: 5778:Machine Elf 1735 5532:Machine Elf 1735 5524:Form of the Good 5483:informal fallacy 5441:Andrew Lancaster 5422:informal fallacy 5296:Machine Elf 1735 5268:Machine Elf 1735 5210:appeal to nature 5172:Machine Elf 1735 5134: 5133: 5132: 5074:Machine Elf 1735 4997:Machine Elf 1735 4925:Machine Elf 1735 4874: 4873: 4872: 4863: 4851: 4844: 4841: 4840:‘what there is’… 4838: 4830: 4676:Machine Elf 1735 4603:Machine Elf 1735 4536:Machine Elf 1735 4532:not an argument, 4472:Machine Elf 1735 4352:appeal to nature 4280:appeal to nature 4234:appeal to nature 4193:Machine Elf 1735 3828:Machine Elf 1735 3811: 3810: 3789: 3788: 3778: 3777: 3767: 3766: 3756: 3755: 3735: 3734: 3725: 3724: 3715:necessarily true 3395:appeal to nature 3071:Machine Elf 1735 3059:appeal to nature 3048:appeal to nature 3043:appeal to nature 2930:Machine Elf 1735 2889: 2884: 2869: 2864: 2590:Appeal to nature 2570: 2569: 2556: 2555: 2538: 2537: 2511: 2510: 2485: 2484: 2471: 2470: 2455: 2451:appeal to nature 2428: 2427: 2410:appeal to nature 2403: 2402: 2360: 2358: 2357: 2275:Walkinxyz wrote 2262:Machine Elf 1735 2256: 2255: 2253: 2233: 2232: 2230: 2158:appeal to nature 2145: 2144: 2142: 2086: 2085: 2083: 2067: 2066: 2064: 2051: 2050: 2048: 2023: 2022: 2020: 2007: 2006: 2004: 1973: 1955: 1953: 1905: 1904: 1902: 1480:, it also means 1126:appeal to nature 1107:Machine Elf 1735 1079:appeal to nature 1029:Andrew Lancaster 951:appeal to nature 945:Appeal to Nature 885: 879: 875: 862: 856: 852: 814:Andrew Lancaster 812:Done, I think.-- 800:Andrew Lancaster 735:appeal to nature 703:appeal to nature 527:appeal to nature 194:for those fields 158:cross validation 113:conceptual model 109:conceptual model 103:Conceptual model 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5805: 5804: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5796: 5795: 5794: 5130: 5129: 5128: 4908:We have to use 4869: 4865: 4861: 4859: 4845: 4842: 4839: 4836: 4669: 4599:and/or validity 4453: 4391:Jürgen Habermas 4260: 4230:Logicalgregory, 4162:Critical theory 3795: 3794: 3787:vi.2. 102720–7) 3782: 3781: 3771: 3770: 3760: 3759: 3744: 3743: 3732: 3731: 3722: 3721: 2887: 2883:U is unnatural. 2882: 2867: 2862: 2851:, (as either a 2586: 2567: 2566: 2553: 2552: 2535: 2534: 2508: 2507: 2482: 2481: 2468: 2467: 2464: 2448: 2425: 2424: 2398: 2396: 2354: 2353: 2351: 2251: 2249: 2248: 2228: 2226: 2225: 2140: 2138: 2137: 2080: 2078: 2077: 2062: 2060: 2059: 2046: 2044: 2043: 2018: 2016: 2015: 2002: 2000: 1999: 1969: 1957: 1947: 1945: 1899: 1897: 1896: 1719: 1658: 1625: 1621: 1599: 1372: 1171: 1045: 1002: 947: 911: 881: 877: 873: 858: 854: 850: 834: 777: 766:Good Ol’factory 757: 523: 424: 351:The Book of Tea 343: 320:Curry's paradox 316:Church's thesis 300: 277: 238: 136:Stephen Toulmin 117:high importance 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5803: 5801: 5791: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5761: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5713: 5712: 5711: 5710: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5682: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5644: 5643: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5620: 5619: 5618: 5617: 5616: 5615: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5584: 5583: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5575: 5569: 5553: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5498: 5497: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5455: 5381: 5380: 5377: 5374: 5371: 5348: 5347: 5346: 5345: 5344: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5326: 5311: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5307: 5306: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5237: 5233: 5226: 5219:The source so 5217: 5197: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5168: 5161: 5158: 5155: 5152: 5149: 5146: 5142: 5125: 5124: 5123: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5070: 5063: 5053: 5052: 5037: 5033: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5024: 5016: 5008: 5007: 4988: 4987: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4891: 4890: 4876: 4875: 4870: 4856: 4855: 4852: 4834: 4799: 4798: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4731: 4723: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4664: 4662: 4660: 4653: 4624: 4616: 4595: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4580: 4561: 4553: 4549: 4528: 4525: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4491: 4360: 4324: 4323: 4320: 4317: 4314: 4254: 4252: 4250: 4248: 4246: 4219: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4185: 4174:Fallacy theory 4170:Informal logic 4158: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4125:Logicalgregory 4096: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4022: 4019: 4018: 4017: 3999: 3985: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3768: 3757: 3738: 3718: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3669: 3659:Logicalgregory 3616: 3612: 3597: 3575:Logicalgregory 3552: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3499:Logicalgregory 3470:Logicalgregory 3455:Logicalgregory 3433: 3432: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3357: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3152:Logicalgregory 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3062: 3055: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2941: 2940: 2914: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2885: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2865: 2849:informal logic 2841: 2838: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2803:in its context 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2784: 2783: 2773:Logicalgregory 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2701:Logicalgregory 2695: 2694: 2651: 2650: 2643: 2642: 2635: 2634: 2628: 2627: 2620: 2619: 2616:therefore also 2585: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2575:Son, bite me. 2563: 2562: 2549: 2548: 2531: 2530: 2523: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2492: 2478: 2477: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2457: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2406: 2387: 2365: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2281: 2280: 2273: 2272: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2183: 2169: 2168: 2161: 2150: 2135: 2134: 2123: 2106: 2091: 2075: 2074: 2057: 2056: 2041: 2040: 2013: 2012: 1997: 1996: 1993: 1987: 1965: 1964: 1959: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1927: 1924: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1894: 1862: 1861: 1799: 1798: 1776: 1772: 1770: 1768: 1764: 1763:Walkinxyz has 1756:(my emphasis) 1754: 1753: 1737: 1736: 1727: 1726: 1718: 1715: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1664: 1663: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1623: 1619: 1616: 1597: 1589: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1547:Logicalgregory 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1436:ridiculousness 1395:Logicalgregory 1371: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1354:Logicalgregory 1327:Logicalgregory 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1292:Logicalgregory 1288: 1256: 1255: 1219:Logicalgregory 1170: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1148: 1147: 1135: 1134: 1130: 1129: 1118: 1117: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1001: 998: 972:Logicalgregory 946: 943: 928:Patrick Suppes 910: 907: 892: 891: 874:Morton Shumway 851:Morton Shumway 833: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 776: 773: 772: 771: 756: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 739:Logicalgregory 722: 721: 693:the so-called 669:Logicalgregory 636: 574: 573: 563:Logicalgregory 522: 519: 518: 517: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 453: 452: 447: 442: 437: 423: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 381: 380: 342: 339: 299: 296: 276: 269: 237: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 180:Logicalgregory 121:Logicalgregory 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5802: 5793: 5792: 5787: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5773: 5767: 5762: 5759: 5755: 5750: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5743: 5740: 5739: 5734: 5730: 5726: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5715: 5714: 5709: 5705: 5701: 5697: 5693: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5687: 5686: 5679: 5678: 5677: 5676: 5673: 5672: 5664: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5657: 5656: 5655: 5652: 5651: 5641: 5640: 5638: 5633: 5632: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5622: 5621: 5612: 5611: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5604: 5603: 5594: 5593: 5592: 5591: 5590: 5589: 5586: 5585: 5576: 5574: 5570: 5567: 5565: 5564: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5559: 5556: 5555: 5554: 5549: 5548: 5541: 5537: 5533: 5529: 5525: 5521: 5517: 5513: 5508: 5507: 5506: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5500: 5499: 5496: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5479: 5475: 5469: 5465: 5461: 5456: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5446: 5442: 5437: 5436: 5435: 5431: 5427: 5423: 5419: 5414: 5410: 5409: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5399: 5395: 5389: 5383: 5382: 5378: 5375: 5372: 5368: 5367: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5359: 5355: 5350: 5349: 5340: 5336: 5332: 5327: 5323: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5313: 5312: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5285: 5284: 5277: 5273: 5269: 5265: 5264: 5263: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5257: 5256: 5251: 5247: 5243: 5238: 5234: 5231: 5227: 5225: 5222: 5218: 5215: 5211: 5206: 5202: 5198: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5189: 5188: 5181: 5177: 5173: 5169: 5166: 5162: 5159: 5156: 5153: 5150: 5147: 5143: 5140: 5136: 5135: 5126: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5106: 5102: 5098: 5089: 5088: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5068: 5064: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5055: 5054: 5051: 5047: 5043: 5038: 5034: 5030: 5025: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5017: 5014: 5013: 5010: 5009: 5006: 5002: 4998: 4994: 4993: 4990: 4989: 4986: 4982: 4981: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4971: 4967: 4963: 4960: 4957: 4951: 4950: 4944: 4943: 4941: 4940: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4920: 4917: 4915: 4911: 4906: 4904: 4900: 4893: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4883: 4880: 4879: 4868: 4857: 4849: 4835: 4831: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4814: 4813:source when? 4812: 4808: 4801: 4800: 4796: 4795: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4787: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4770: 4769: 4766: 4765: 4750: 4746: 4742: 4737: 4732: 4729: 4724: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4699: 4698: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4668: 4661: 4658: 4654: 4651: 4647: 4646: 4644: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4596: 4593: 4589: 4584: 4583: 4581: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4571: 4567: 4562: 4559: 4554: 4550: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4541: 4537: 4533: 4529: 4526: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4508: 4503: 4502: 4499: 4496: 4495:natural kinds 4492: 4488: 4487: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4477: 4473: 4468: 4466: 4462: 4455: 4454: 4451: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4436: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4420: 4418: 4414: 4408: 4405: 4401: 4398: 4394: 4392: 4387: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4374: 4370: 4366: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4353: 4348: 4344: 4339: 4337: 4333: 4326: 4325: 4321: 4318: 4315: 4312: 4311: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4304: 4300: 4298: 4291: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4262: 4261: 4258: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4221: 4220: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4210: 4209: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4140: 4139: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4102: 4097: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4082: 4077: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4023: 4020: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4006: 4004: 4000: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3937: 3936: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3915: 3914: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3893: 3892: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3871: 3870: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3849: 3848: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3808: 3804: 3799: 3793: 3786: 3780: 3779: 3774: 3769: 3763: 3758: 3753: 3748: 3742: 3741: 3739: 3729: 3719: 3716: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3694: 3693: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3617: 3613: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3598: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3550: 3549: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3530: 3522: 3521: 3518: 3517: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3439: 3438: 3435: 3434: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3389: 3388: 3385: 3384: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3358: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3340: 3339: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3304: 3303: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3278: 3277: 3264: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3247: 3246: 3234: 3233:an argument's 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3218: 3217: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3181: 3180: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3171: 3170: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3142:)) or write ( 3141: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3090: 3089: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3067: 3063: 3060: 3056: 3053: 3049: 3044: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3030: 3029: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3002: 3001: 2996: 2995: 2991: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2980: 2979: 2970: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2958: 2957: 2952: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2943: 2942: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2898: 2895: 2894: 2886: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2875: 2874: 2866: 2863:N is natural. 2861: 2860: 2858: 2854: 2853:rule of thumb 2850: 2846: 2842: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2827: 2826: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2790: 2785: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2743: 2739: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2727: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2696: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2652: 2647: 2646: 2644: 2639: 2638: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2629: 2624: 2623: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2597: 2593: 2591: 2583: 2578: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2528: 2524: 2522: 2519:he bloviates 2518: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2500: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2458: 2452: 2446: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2411: 2407: 2404: 2401: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2315: 2312: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2297: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2242: 2239: 2238: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2209: 2205: 2202: 2198: 2197: 2195: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2182: 2179: 2175: 2174: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2121: 2120: 2114: 2110: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2073: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2038: 2036: 2032: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2010: 2009: 2008: 1994: 1991: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1972: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1951: 1943: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1928: 1925: 1922: 1917: 1914: 1913: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1866: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1851: 1845: 1840: 1837: 1835: 1830: 1828: 1823: 1821: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1808: 1804: 1796: 1794: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1784: 1778: 1773: 1766: 1760: 1757: 1751: 1747: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1716: 1714: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1654: 1651: 1648: 1647: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1617: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1595: 1590: 1587: 1586:Zsa Zsa Gabor 1583: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1526: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1470: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1446: 1441: 1440:Huxley Family 1437: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1369: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1348: 1344: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1200: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1187: 1182: 1180: 1176: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1120: 1119: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 999: 997: 996: 992: 988: 982: 981: 977: 973: 968: 967: 963: 959: 954: 952: 944: 942: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 922: 918: 917: 906: 905: 901: 897: 889: 886: 884: 876: 870: 869: 868: 866: 863: 861: 853: 847: 843: 839: 832: 829: 823: 819: 815: 811: 810: 809: 805: 801: 797: 796: 795: 794: 790: 786: 782: 770: 767: 763: 759: 758: 754: 748: 744: 740: 736: 731: 726: 725: 724: 723: 720: 716: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 684: 681: 680: 679: 678: 674: 670: 665: 661: 658: 655: 652: 649: 647: 643: 637: 634: 633: 629: 625: 621: 616: 612: 608: 603: 602: 598: 594: 590: 588: 582: 578: 572: 568: 564: 560: 555: 554: 553: 552: 548: 544: 540: 539: 534: 530: 528: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 503: 496: 492: 488: 484: 483: 482: 478: 474: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 461: 457: 451: 448: 446: 443: 441: 438: 434: 433: 432: 429: 421: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 390: 386: 379: 375: 371: 367: 366: 365: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 340: 338: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 308:"constraints" 305: 295: 294: 290: 286: 282: 274: 268: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 235: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 208: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 190: 189: 185: 181: 177: 176: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 148: 145: 144:nonparametric 141: 137: 133: 132: 131: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 110: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5771: 5769: 5742: 5741: 5717: 5716: 5689: 5688: 5675: 5674: 5662: 5654: 5653: 5624: 5623: 5606: 5605: 5588: 5587: 5572: 5558: 5557: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5519: 5515: 5502: 5501: 5482: 5477: 5421: 5417: 5412: 5408: 5407: 5390: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5366: 5365: 5360: 5356: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5315: 5314: 5287: 5286: 5259: 5258: 5220: 5216:in general." 5213: 5209: 5204: 5200: 5191: 5190: 5115: 5114: 5096: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5057: 5056: 5012: 5011: 4992: 4991: 4980: 4979: 4964: 4961: 4958: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4939: 4938: 4921: 4918: 4907: 4898: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4886: 4882: 4881: 4866: 4847: 4828: 4827: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4815: 4810: 4806: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4794: 4793: 4788: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4768: 4767: 4735: 4727: 4707: 4706: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4666: 4656: 4649: 4623:to)(nature)? 4619: 4598: 4557: 4531: 4486: 4485: 4469: 4460: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4437: 4432: 4428: 4424: 4422: 4416: 4412: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4399: 4395: 4388: 4362: 4359: 4358: 4340: 4335: 4331: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4310: 4309: 4296: 4294: 4292: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4256: 4245: 4244: 4229: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4218: 4217: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4188: 4181: 4154: 4142: 4141: 4105: 4100: 4080: 4030: 4026: 4013: 4009: 3980: 3976: 3939: 3938: 3917: 3916: 3895: 3894: 3873: 3872: 3851: 3850: 3823: 3806: 3802: 3797: 3784: 3772: 3761: 3751: 3746: 3714: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3654: 3650: 3578: 3577:says above: 3570: 3548: 3547: 3528: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3520: 3519: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3437: 3436: 3417: 3413: 3412: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3387: 3386: 3342: 3341: 3306: 3305: 3280: 3279: 3262: 3249: 3248: 3232: 3220: 3219: 3173: 3172: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3118:intelligible 3117: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3092: 3091: 3058: 3051: 3047: 3042: 3032: 3031: 3004: 3003: 2993: 2987: 2982: 2981: 2968: 2960: 2959: 2950: 2945: 2944: 2921: 2905: 2897: 2896: 2877: 2876: 2833: 2829: 2828: 2802: 2792: 2791: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2741: 2737: 2734: 2728: 2713: 2698: 2697: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2654: 2653: 2645: 2637: 2630: 2622: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2599: 2595: 2587: 2564: 2550: 2532: 2520: 2516: 2505: 2498:effectively. 2479: 2465: 2450: 2409: 2399: 2382:make it non- 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2350: 2319: 2316: 2313: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2298: 2289: 2282: 2274: 2247: 2224: 2217: 2203: 2189: 2180: 2164: 2157: 2153: 2136: 2130: 2126: 2118: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2076: 2058: 2042: 2034: 2030: 2028: 2014: 1998: 1979: 1975: 1970: 1958: 1949: 1941: 1909: 1895: 1881: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1854: 1849: 1847: 1842: 1838: 1831: 1824: 1819: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1800: 1792: 1790: 1782: 1780: 1774: 1767: 1762: 1758: 1755: 1749: 1745: 1738: 1728: 1720: 1701: 1671:Anthonyhcole 1601: 1593: 1582:Paris Hilton 1524: 1505: 1501: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1444: 1417: 1375: 1373: 1323: 1262: 1214: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1198: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1185: 1183: 1172: 1139: 1121: 1074: 1046: 1003: 983: 969: 955: 948: 914: 912: 893: 882: 859: 835: 778: 729: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 666: 662: 659: 656: 653: 650: 645: 641: 638: 635: 619: 614: 610: 606: 604: 591: 586: 583: 579: 575: 558: 541: 535: 531: 524: 454: 425: 404:philosophy. 401: 382: 344: 311: 307: 303: 301: 278: 239: 193: 150:bootstraping 139: 116: 112: 106: 75: 43: 37: 5725:Lisnabreeny 5700:Lisnabreeny 5681:arguments". 5639:Therefore: 5460:Lisnabreeny 5331:Lisnabreeny 5242:Lisnabreeny 5205:very thread 5101:Lisnabreeny 5042:Lisnabreeny 4862:Julia Annas 4741:Lisnabreeny 4629:Lisnabreeny 4566:Lisnabreeny 4512:Lisnabreeny 4153:about this 4060:Lisnabreeny 4050:exceptions. 4035:Lisnabreeny 4003:wp:argument 3989:Lisnabreeny 3785:Metaphysics 3621:Lisnabreeny 3602:Lisnabreeny 3556:Lisnabreeny 3485:Lisnabreeny 3292:statements? 3113:truthbearer 3054:in general. 2913:originated. 2649:Am I wrong? 2337:Lisnabreeny 2311:something. 1735:statements? 1578:cold fusion 1506:disposition 1452:talk page. 1413:seriousness 1237:Just do it! 987:Lisnabreeny 620:∀x(Mx ↔ Nx) 615:∀x(Mx ↔ Nx) 543:Lisnabreeny 370:Platonykiss 279:In the new 162:independent 147:monte carlo 36:This is an 5756:, but the 4850:nature is. 4276:definition 4149:Here's an 3468:fallacy.-- 2855:, or as a 2837:argument.” 2413:validity.” 2400:(My input) 2213:Revert #1 2199:Revert #2 2185:Revert #3 2176:Revert #4 1525:ipso facto 1502:propensity 1186:notability 1175:notability 1089:, so I'll 587:tout court 306:absurdity 246:metamodels 154:parametric 95:Archive 20 87:Archive 15 82:Archive 14 76:Archive 13 70:Archive 12 65:Archive 11 60:Archive 10 5478:seriously 5413:seriously 5394:Pfhorrest 5370:premises. 4966:Walkinxyz 4442:Walkinxyz 4425:ourselves 4378:that are 4369:biography 4354:article. 4226:Pfhorrest 3962:Pfhorrest 3673:Pfhorrest 3534:Walkinxyz 3399:Walkinxyz 3362:Pfhorrest 3319:Walkinxyz 3199:Pfhorrest 3138:and (not 3013:Walkinxyz 2808:Walkinxyz 2747:Walkinxyz 2742:arbitrary 2738:arbitrary 2676:and (not 2657:Walkinxyz 2577:game over 2527:WP:BURDEN 2454:validity. 2321:Walkinxyz 1883:Walkinxyz 1409:Seriously 1270:WP:BJAODN 1201:fallacy? 1153:Walkinxyz 1095:WP:FRINGE 1014:Pfhorrest 958:Walkinxyz 921:absurdity 916:Highlands 896:Walkinxyz 783:article? 781:absurdity 593:Walkinxyz 385:Walkinxyz 326:article? 324:absurdity 281:absurdity 273:absurdity 242:absurdity 5776:Thanks.— 5487:Philogos 5426:Philogos 5236:nature." 5139:WP:CIVIL 5036:nature". 4784:WP:CIVIL 4665:Cooper, 4380:relevant 4376:articles 4336:Philogo, 4272:informal 4257:informal 4110:Philogos 4106:good for 4086:Philogos 3636:Philogos 3615:avoided. 3583:Philogos 3529:separate 3422:Philogos 3185:Philogos 3183:prior"— 3146:or (not 3122:Philogos 3103:and (not 2910:sophists 2763:and (not 2294:argument 2286:argument 2165:Habermas 1803:location 1486:Looie496 1472:I think 1140:actually 1099:WP:UNDUE 1087:verified 1083:argument 1061:Philogos 956:Thanks. 711:Philogos 507:Philogos 402:acquired 5221:central 4914:claimed 4592:concept 4382:to his 4345:to the 4151:article 4103:. : --> 4010:invalid 4001:I read 3984:pieces. 3747:Physics 3150:)) ??-- 2994:per se, 2922:per se, 2857:fallacy 2380:did not 1500:Yes, a 1474:notable 1243:page.) 1241:WP:Bold 730:fallacy 640:nature 624:Philogo 611:assumes 487:Philogo 456:Philogo 355:icetea8 275:article 39:archive 5754:WP:SYN 5520:right, 5165:WP:NPA 5067:WP:AGF 5065:I did 4985:WP:NPA 4780:WP:NPA 4776:WP:AGF 4655:Annas 4433:nature 4297:nobody 2902:(1995) 2834:should 2154:trying 2037:words. 1948:but a 1602:degree 1594:degree 1215:per se 1103:reason 1091:WP:AGF 1075:delete 349:is in 347:teaism 345:While 341:Teaism 318:, and 212:models 152:, and 5516:good, 4910:WP:RS 4887:quote 4871:p.136 4848:human 4728:quote 4384:ideas 4373:other 4288:WP:OR 4182:would 4178:Logic 4014:valid 3977:never 3737:good. 3571:still 2906:human 2384:WP:OR 2131:After 2127:sneak 2117:long 2103:WP:OR 2099:WP:OR 2095:WP:OR 2082:TIME. 2035:exact 1984:WP:OR 1974:what 613:that 16:< 5782:talk 5770:I'm 5758:WP:V 5729:talk 5704:talk 5536:talk 5512:here 5491:talk 5464:talk 5445:talk 5430:talk 5398:talk 5335:talk 5300:talk 5272:talk 5246:talk 5201:same 5176:talk 5105:talk 5078:talk 5046:talk 5001:talk 4970:talk 4929:talk 4745:talk 4680:talk 4633:talk 4607:talk 4570:talk 4552:to". 4540:talk 4516:talk 4476:talk 4446:talk 4429:know 4334:and 4295:no, 4284:WP:V 4268:also 4228:and 4197:talk 4189:only 4172:", " 4168:", " 4164:", " 4129:talk 4114:talk 4090:talk 4064:talk 4039:talk 3993:talk 3981:does 3966:talk 3956:and 3832:talk 3820:good 3677:talk 3663:talk 3640:talk 3625:talk 3606:talk 3587:talk 3560:talk 3538:talk 3503:talk 3489:talk 3474:talk 3459:talk 3426:talk 3403:talk 3366:talk 3323:talk 3203:talk 3189:talk 3156:talk 3126:talk 3075:talk 3069:go.— 3017:talk 2972:all. 2934:talk 2812:talk 2777:talk 2751:talk 2705:talk 2661:talk 2517:You! 2441:web. 2408:“An 2341:talk 2325:talk 2301:your 2266:talk 2119:long 1990:WP:V 1887:talk 1834:here 1708:talk 1704:PPdd 1689:talk 1685:PPdd 1675:talk 1631:talk 1627:PPdd 1610:talk 1606:PPdd 1551:talk 1514:talk 1510:PPdd 1490:talk 1458:talk 1454:PPdd 1445:felt 1426:talk 1422:PPdd 1418:some 1399:talk 1384:talk 1380:PPdd 1358:talk 1347:talk 1343:PPdd 1331:talk 1311:talk 1307:PPdd 1296:talk 1282:talk 1278:PPdd 1249:talk 1245:PPdd 1223:talk 1157:talk 1122:keep 1111:talk 1065:talk 1033:talk 1018:talk 991:talk 976:talk 962:talk 936:talk 932:PPdd 900:talk 883:talk 860:talk 838:love 831:Love 818:talk 804:talk 789:talk 785:PPdd 760:See 743:talk 715:talk 691:then 673:talk 628:talk 607:type 597:talk 567:talk 547:talk 511:talk 491:talk 477:talk 473:PPdd 460:talk 426:The 410:talk 406:PPdd 389:talk 374:talk 359:talk 332:talk 328:PPdd 289:talk 285:PPdd 262:talk 258:PPdd 248:and 220:talk 216:PPdd 202:talk 198:PPdd 184:talk 170:talk 166:PPdd 125:talk 5772:not 5493:) 5432:) 5032:x). 4736:are 4253:... 4249:... 4116:) 4092:) 4081:all 3730:of 3642:) 3589:) 3447:not 3428:) 3191:) 3128:) 2491:me? 2449:An 2376:did 2372:did 2309:win 2113:are 2101:as 2031:did 1829:". 1791:as 1783:not 1604:). 1504:or 1376:not 1263:now 1067:) 717:) 687:and 513:) 304:not 252:in 5784:) 5731:) 5706:) 5538:) 5466:) 5447:) 5400:) 5337:) 5302:) 5274:) 5248:) 5178:) 5107:) 5080:) 5048:) 5003:) 4972:) 4931:) 4905:. 4864:, 4860:— 4854:” 4833:“ 4807:is 4747:) 4682:) 4645:: 4635:) 4609:) 4572:) 4542:) 4518:) 4478:) 4467:. 4448:) 4386:. 4286:, 4240:: 4199:) 4131:) 4066:) 4041:) 3995:) 3968:) 3834:) 3679:) 3665:) 3657:-- 3627:) 3608:) 3562:) 3540:) 3505:) 3491:) 3476:) 3461:) 3451:is 3405:) 3368:) 3325:) 3205:) 3158:) 3077:) 3019:) 2969:is 2936:) 2814:) 2779:) 2753:) 2707:) 2699:-- 2663:) 2571:” 2557:” 2539:” 2512:” 2486:” 2472:” 2343:) 2327:) 2268:) 1889:) 1836:. 1710:) 1691:) 1677:) 1657:tD 1633:) 1622:- 1612:) 1588:). 1553:) 1516:) 1492:) 1460:) 1428:) 1401:) 1386:) 1360:) 1349:) 1333:) 1313:) 1298:) 1284:) 1251:) 1225:) 1159:) 1113:) 1059:— 1035:) 1020:) 993:) 978:) 964:) 938:) 902:) 867:. 848:. 844:, 820:) 806:) 791:) 764:. 745:) 683:If 675:) 642:is 630:) 599:) 589:. 569:) 549:) 493:) 479:) 462:) 412:) 391:) 376:) 361:) 334:) 314:, 291:) 264:) 256:. 222:) 204:) 186:) 172:) 127:) 91:→ 5780:( 5727:( 5702:( 5571:" 5568:] 5534:( 5489:( 5462:( 5443:( 5428:( 5396:( 5333:( 5298:( 5270:( 5244:( 5232:. 5174:( 5127:“ 5103:( 5076:( 5044:( 4999:( 4968:( 4927:( 4811:a 4743:( 4678:( 4659:; 4652:; 4631:( 4605:( 4568:( 4560:. 4538:( 4514:( 4474:( 4452:” 4444:( 4419:… 4195:( 4127:( 4112:( 4088:( 4062:( 4037:( 3991:( 3964:( 3830:( 3675:( 3661:( 3638:( 3623:( 3604:( 3585:( 3558:( 3536:( 3501:( 3487:( 3472:( 3457:( 3424:( 3401:( 3364:( 3321:( 3201:( 3187:( 3154:( 3148:p 3144:p 3140:p 3136:p 3124:( 3109:p 3105:p 3101:p 3099:( 3073:( 3015:( 2932:( 2810:( 2775:( 2769:p 2765:p 2761:p 2749:( 2703:( 2690:p 2686:p 2682:p 2678:p 2674:p 2659:( 2579:. 2565:“ 2551:“ 2547:. 2533:“ 2529:. 2506:“ 2480:“ 2466:“ 2456:” 2447:“ 2429:” 2423:“ 2405:. 2386:. 2359:” 2352:“ 2339:( 2323:( 2264:( 2254:” 2250:“ 2231:” 2227:“ 2143:” 2139:“ 2084:” 2079:“ 2065:” 2061:“ 2049:” 2045:“ 2021:” 2017:“ 2005:” 2001:“ 1976:I 1942:a 1918:. 1903:” 1898:“ 1885:( 1807:a 1793:a 1752:. 1706:( 1687:( 1673:( 1629:( 1620:t 1608:( 1598:t 1549:( 1512:( 1488:( 1456:( 1424:( 1397:( 1382:( 1356:( 1345:( 1329:( 1309:( 1294:( 1280:( 1247:( 1221:( 1155:( 1146:. 1109:( 1063:( 1031:( 1016:( 989:( 974:( 960:( 934:( 898:( 890:. 878:— 855:— 816:( 802:( 787:( 741:( 713:( 671:( 626:( 595:( 565:( 545:( 509:( 489:( 475:( 458:( 408:( 387:( 372:( 357:( 330:( 287:( 260:( 218:( 200:( 182:( 168:( 123:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 13 - Knowledge

Index