Naturalistic fallacy. In philosophical ethics, the term "naturalistic fallacy" was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.[1] Moore argues it would be fallacious to explain that which is good reductively in terms of natural properties such as "pleasant" or "desirable". The naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the fallacious appeal to nature, the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong.
Furthermore, Moore's naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the is–ought problem, which comes from Hume's Treatise. However, unlike Hume's view of the is–ought problem, Moore (and other proponents of ethical non-naturalism) did not consider the naturalistic fallacy to be at odds with moral realism. Different common uses[edit] The is–ought problem[edit] The term "naturalistic fallacy" is sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is" (the Is–ought problem). Moore's discussion[edit] Notes[edit] Wisdom of repugnance. Origin and usage[edit] The term "wisdom of repugnance" was coined in 1997 by Leon Kass, chairman (2001–2005) of the President's Council on Bioethics, in an article in The New Republic,[3] which was later expanded into a further (2001) article in the same magazine,[4] and also incorporated into his 2002 book Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity.[5] Kass stated that disgust was not an argument per se, but went on to say that "in crucial cases...repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason's power fully to articulate it.
" The term remains largely confined to discussions of bioethics, and is somewhat related to the term "yuck factor". However, unlike the latter, it is used almost exclusively by those who accept its underlying premise; i.e., that repugnance does, in fact, indicate wisdom. It is thus often viewed as loaded language, and is primarily used by certain bioconservatives to justify their position. Criticism[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] 15 Styles of Distorted Thinking.
OkTrends. Cognitive distortion. Exaggerated or irrational thought pattern Challenging and changing cognitive distortions is a key element of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Definition[edit] Cognitive comes from the Medieval Latin cognitīvus, equivalent to Latin cognit(us), 'known'.[4] Distortion means the act of twisting or altering something out of its true, natural, or original state.[5] History[edit] In 1957, American psychologist Albert Ellis, though he did not know it yet, would aid cognitive therapy in correcting cognitive distortions and indirectly helping David D. Burns in writing The Feeling Good Handbook. Ellis created what he called the ABC Technique of rational beliefs. Beck's student David D. Main types[edit] Examples of some common cognitive distortions seen in depressed and anxious individuals. John C. All-or-nothing thinking[edit] The "all-or-nothing thinking distortion" is also referred to as "splitting",[19] "black-and-white thinking",[2] and "polarized thinking Jumping to conclusions[edit]
Fallacy. A fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument.[1][2] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A formal fallacy can be expressed neatly in a standard system of logic, such as propositional logic,[1] while an informal fallacy originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form.[3] Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.[4] Formal fallacy[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy A formal fallacy is a common error of thinking that can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic.[1] An argument that is formally fallacious is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure.
Such an argument is always considered to be wrong. The Anosognosic's Dilemma: Something's Wrong but You'll Never Know What It Is (Part 1) Existence is elsewhere. — André Breton, “The Surrealist Manifesto” 1. The Juice David Dunning, a Cornell professor of social psychology, was perusing the 1996 World Almanac. In a section called Offbeat News Stories he found a tantalizingly brief account of a series of bank robberies committed in Pittsburgh the previous year. From there, it was an easy matter to track the case to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, specifically to an article by Michael A. At 5 feet 6 inches and about 270 pounds, bank robbery suspect McArthur Wheeler isn’t the type of person who fades into the woodwork.
Wheeler had walked into two Pittsburgh banks and attempted to rob them in broad daylight. In a follow-up article, Fuoco spoke to several Pittsburgh police detectives who had been involved in Wheeler’s arrest. (a) the film was bad; (b) Wheeler hadn’t adjusted the camera correctly; or (c) Wheeler had pointed the camera away from his face at the critical moment when he snapped the photo.[2] ERROL MORRIS: Why not? 1. 2.