,
15 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Welcome to #FallacyFridays! Every Friday, I'll be sharing a logical fallacy, why it's compelling, some examples, and a chance for you to correctly identify it. Don't hesitate to retweet to let your followers in on the fun!
Today's logical fallacy is "appeal to nature."
1/
Today's logical fallacy is "appeal to nature."
1/
The "appeal to nature" fallacy basically states that if something is "natural," it is good. If it is "unnatural," it is bad. This is often compelling to us because many of us, knowingly or unknowingly, attribute goodness to what appears "natural."
2/
2/
It's also what drives companies, especially in the food industries and companies that sell body products, to market things as "all-natural." We live in an age of chemophobia, where chemicals are seen by many as bad b/c they are not "natural." No additives? Yes PLEASE! 😍
3/
3/
Spoiler alert: everything, including clean water, is a chemical. Tell your friends. 😉
4/
4/
It's because of our love of the appeal to nature fallacy that the natural and organic beauty industry is booming. And get this...it's projected to grow to $54 billion by 2027: formulabotanica.com/global-organic…
5/
5/
The appeal to nature fallacy is what drives high engagement in "natural living" groups and (from what I hear) Mom groups on Facebook, members asking for "natural" remedies to various health concerns or problems. To them most medication is a no-no b/c it's synthetic.
6/
6/
Ironically enough, diseases are a natural aspect of being human. Yet they are bad for our bodies, hence why we treat them. Things like poison ivy and poison oak are naturally occurring. But they do bad things to our bodies too and require treatment to get better.
7/
7/
Going beyond objects and disease, the allowance of behaviors are often justified using the appeal to nature fallacy. For example, there are people that believe that cloning ourselves or other organisms or editing one's genes is morally wrong b/c it's "unnatural."
8/
8/
They see cloning & gene editing as tampering with fate or "playing God." "Just let nature take its course," they say. However, the whole bedrock of medicine requires intruding the natural conditions of the body to make it better. Most of them wouldn't oppose that.
6/
6/
The major flaw with the appeal to nature fallacy (and with many fallacies) is that you end up being inconsistent. You think appeal to nature is justified in one scenario, but bring up a similar scenario and you end up talking out of both sides of your mouth.
7/
7/
Now, it's important to note that there is a difference between acknowledging that something does or doesn't occur in nature and using its natural occurrence (or lack thereof) as moral justification. The former is an observation. The latter is a fallacy.
8/
8/
Now let's test your understanding! Which of the following is NOT an example of the appeal to nature fallacy?
A. Eating meat is justified. It's the food chain.
B. We need water to live. Drink it.
C. Almost all species show homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with being gay.
A. Eating meat is justified. It's the food chain.
B. We need water to live. Drink it.
C. Almost all species show homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with being gay.
Just a friendly reminder to read the above question carefully! Notice that I am asking which one is NOT an appeal to nature fallacy.
Lmfao I just noticed I screwed up the number order in my thread. My bad, guys. 😂
