[Home]Naturalistic fallacy/Talk

HomePage | Naturalistic fallacy | Recent Changes | Preferences

Showing revision 2
It's interesting to note that [1] is just completely false--that's a definition of the "is-ought fallacy," due to Hume, not the naturalistic fallacy. Of course, they're very closely related conceptually, but they aren't the same thing. --Larry Sanger

It's alarming, actually. How could such a basic error crept into a (presumably) respectable reference book? --AV

HomePage | Naturalistic fallacy | Recent Changes | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions | View current revision
Edited October 25, 2001 7:14 am by Anatoly Vorobey (diff)
Search: