{"id":2673,"date":"2012-10-09T00:35:00","date_gmt":"2012-10-08T23:35:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=2673"},"modified":"2012-10-09T00:35:00","modified_gmt":"2012-10-08T23:35:00","slug":"the-naturalistic-fallacy-as-used-in-the-science-literature","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2012\/10\/the-naturalistic-fallacy-as-used-in-the-science-literature\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;The naturalistic fallacy&#8221; as used in the science literature&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cIt goes without saying that our contention that beautiful people are more intelligent is purely scientific (logical and empirical); it is not a prescription for how to treat or judge others. To derive a behavioral prescription (what one ought to do) from a scientific conclusion (what is) would be an example of what Hume (1964\/1739) calls the \u2018\u2018naturalistic fallacy.\u2019\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/Why-beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent.pdf\">Why beautiful people are more intelligent<\/a><\/p>\n<p>How annoying it is to read stuff like this is the scientific literature. The phrase mentioned was introduced by GE Moore, not Hume. Hume didn&#8217;t even call it \u201cfallacy\u201d. Besides, Moore&#8217;s use of the phrase is different from what the author is talking about, which is inferring is from ought, i.e. is\/ought fallacy. And lastly, since Hume was an ideal observer theorist, he would be inconsistent to claim that &#8220;ought&#8221; can never be deduced from &#8220;is&#8221;, since that is precisely what he is claiming that it can. Although from a special kind of &#8220;is&#8221;.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cIt goes without saying that our contention that beautiful people are more intelligent is purely scientific (logical and empirical); it is not a prescription for how to treat or judge others. To derive a behavioral prescription (what one ought to do) from a scientific conclusion (what is) would be an example of what Hume (1964\/1739) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[1831,519,1613,1612],"class_list":["post-2673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethics-philosophy","tag-ge-moore","tag-hume","tag-isought","tag-naturalistic-fallacy","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2673","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2673"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2673\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3298,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2673\/revisions\/3298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}