Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Machine Elf 1735 (talk | contribs) at 12:28, 12 February 2011 (→Post Review Discussion: ←). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Philosophy: Logic / Ethics Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Ethics

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2011. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Removed paragraph

I removed this section, because I can't really see how this fits into an article on logic, but only serves to spread a controversy to this page. Hoever, maybe someone could rework it so that it fits here.

Some{{Who|date=March 2009}} have argued that biological findings regarding evolution and ] have helped propel the ] into power. Biologist ] replied to such criticism with the question "What should we have done, fiddled the equations?"<!-- This is discussed in Dawkins (2006) as well, though I'm unable to find the letter in New Scientist to which he refers --> In reality, writers in this field often consider the selfish behavior seen in nature important in understanding why we act the way we do, and as a warning of how we should ''not'' behave. One of the main themes ] pursues in '']'' is that "we should not derive our values from Darwinism, unless it is with a negative sign". He points out that a society that uses nature as a moral compass would be "a very nasty society in which to live". He makes the point, however, that there are ] between a statement of ].<ref>Dawkins, R. 2006. ''The Selfish Gene'', 30th Anniversary edition. pp. xiv, 3.</ref>,

Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a fallacy

The propsition "If natural, then good" is not a fallacy if it is preceded by an axiom of "What we define as natural is inherently good", which taken in isolation is a very possible position in philosophy. It is therefore only a fallacy if "natural = good" is taken for granted when not agreed upon beforehand. I recommend a strong rewording of this article to account for that position. --Nerd42 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain that for those of us who've not done philosophy. As a physicist what you've just said is X = Y therefore X = Y since the statement 'what we define as natural is inherently good' is clearly a long winded way of claiming 'natural = good'. Must a fallacy always objectively be one? Surely any fallacy can be negated if you first establish ground rules that negate it?193.195.181.230 (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Saying that something is fallacious does not mean that the argument "P, therefore P" fails. Fallacy can refer to an appeal to emotion, which this most certainly is.Xodarap00 (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The natural order is a fallacy ? I guess existence itself is a "fallacy" then

I do not see how referring to the natural "order" of the world can be a logical fallacy. The creation and existence of the universe is not in the control of artificial means (i.e. those of a sentient being like a human). The existence of life on Earth is determined by whatever it is that is responsible for the universe itself so if someone disagrees with an action or opinion which is an artificial manipulation of this existence (i.e. by humans), then it is indeed quite logical.

For example, if one argues we should not have a nuclear war because it is a non-natural act that will wipe out all (or nearly all) life on the planet, its a valid argument. This is based on empirical observation that only one species on our planet, humans, are capable of performing such an act and therefore it is not in accordance with that of nature. The only other possibility for mass extinction events to occur is by an event determined by whatever "force" holds the universe together/is responsible for "time" or the sequence of events which occur (e.g. a Volcanic eruption or the impact of an asteroid). It is therefore logical, based on empirical reasoning, not to perform an act which is contrary to the existence of life itself and not replicated by any other known species (i.e. non-natural).

Another example of the validity of the natural argument is the practice of a voluntary suicide. This is another human behaviour not replicated by any other species. Perhaps the term artificial is the main issue since artificial is essentially anything created or done by humans. The term artificial itself precludes the idea that humans posess various qualities or traits distinct from anything else in the natural world (e.g. our level of intelligence, language, etc.). Since no other species on this planet commits acts which can result in the destruction of all life itself, it is recognized that humans are distinct in this manner. With this in mind, such an act is an example of our potential to do things which break any connection we have to the natural world and are non-natural.

72.39.250.213 (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're misunderstanding the point of the articles. Appeal to Nature does not say that "natural is not good", it says "the statement 'natural is good' is not necessarily true." That which is natural certainly can be good, that's not in question, but just because it is natural does not make it good.

Addressing your argument regarding nuclear war, surely almost everyone with agree with you that nuclear war is bad. However, nuclear war is not bad because it's "unnatural" (a hopelessly vague word), nuclear war is bad because it would cause enormous destruction, possibly ending macroscopic life for millions of years. Mass extinctions can be naturally occurring for many reasons, but they're still "bad," unless perhaps you're a member of one of the species that thrives afterward!

99.20.91.212 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Using fallacy to argue fallacy

Regarding the following quote:

"Lastly, the argument can quickly be invalidated by a counter-argument that demonstrates something that is natural that has undesirable properties (for example aging, illness, and death are natural), or something that is unnatural that has desirable properties (for example, many modern medicines are not found in nature, yet have saved countless lives)."

As a counter-counter-argument to this statement, valid philosophies include the acceptance of aging, illness, and death as normal parts of the human existence, along with the rejection of modern medicines due to their role in over-population, for example.

In other words, the quoted argument performs a fallacy in itself by assuming that aging, illness, and death are undesirable, and that saving countless lives (although trickier to dispute) is desirable.

Tenstairs (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I reworded this to say "can be seen as desirable" rather than saying "is desirable." Xodarap00 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Naturalism faces a problem of Induction

There is an epistemological question a naturalist has to answer: "How do you know the naturalistic criteria to which objects must strive towards?" I think that as human beings, we look at the world around us and abstract out generalizations from the various things we sense. Right now, I’m looking outside my window at a Red Cedar. It shares many traits with other objects outside my window, most of which are plants. Because the Cedar shares a lot of exact similarities with other plants, it is a member of the plant family. Comparing the Cedar tree to grass and bushes shows that there are a lot of strong distinctions between the various types of plant, so we create sub-classes to represent these property-based distinctions (grasses, shrubs, trees, etc). There are lots of trees outside. In order to identify a particular tree as a Cedar and another as a Douglas Fir, we’d need to note the distinctions between Cedars and Douglas Firs (Bark texture, leaves, shape, branch structure, etc). The particular cedar I’m looking at appears to be a good example of a cedar tree. The way I form that judgment is by comparing this particular cedar tree to my mental prototype of a cedar tree, which is formed by my various life experiences with cedar trees. Now, here’s the problem: Imagine that you’re hiking out in the woods, and for the first time you encounter a new, exceptionally rare, scraggly looking tree. Nobody has ever seen it before so it’s a new species. Since there isn’t a mental prototype to compare this new tree against, it’s impossible to say anything normative about this particular tree within its class – only a comparison to other trees is reasonable. Is the scraggly appearance natural to this new type of tree, or is this particular tree unhealthy? Because there are no established normative criteria for this new tree, the naturalist can’t say whether or not the tree is flourishing. Let’s suppose that as you continue in your walk, you encounter several more of these rare trees. They all appear to be scraggly, so you make a normative generalization about the scraggliness of the trees. Unfortunately, this region of the forest has been infested by a particular type of tree fungus which causes the newly discovered tree species to be scraggly and unhealthy. The trees are certainly not flourishing, but now that the naturalist has been able to make a normative generalization about the typical nature of these trees, they would have to evaluate the level of flourishing based on how these trees exemplify their scraggly nature. Because of this problem with induction, I hesitate to associate naturalistic excellence with flourishing. --Eric Nevala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.40.177 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes 8/3

• this is listed in appeals to emotion in the philosophy template, so putting it there in the lede
• split it up a bit, more because it was too long than because of any semantic breaks
• Tried to clean it up a little, but I'm not very good with the words :)

Xodarap00 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

Disputed/POV

Could anyone give some info as to why this is pov/disputed? It looks like it was tagged there by an anon user. If no one has objections in the next few days I think I'll just remove the tags. Xodarap00 (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Of this article's two external sources, the most qualified (yet still unreviewed) writes:

"Nonetheless, one may still feel that there is something right about some appeals to nature. For instance, a diet rich in natural foods-such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains-is probably better than one based on more artificial foods-such as candy, pastries, and sausages. Also, it seems likely that a natural lifestyle-that is, one based on a natural diet and exercise-is in general a healthier one than a sedentary life spent watching television and eating doughnuts. These forms of argument could be treated as rules of thumb which admit some exceptions, but are still reliable enough to be useful."

Ideological Battle

This quote exemplifies the very casual language and non-philosophical reasoning which this whole article is based on. I nominate for it to be deleted and redirected or replaced with the adequately checked section in: naturalistic fallacy. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ideological Battle

This article is clearly distorted to use in ideological battles with 'green' types. The notion that philosophers have concluded that any preference for nature in any context is fallacious, is absurd. The page is in need of attention from a mature, experienced philosophy editor. Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I pov tagged the article and put this up to discuss/attract attention not knowing better process. On 29th Jan I put up the del subst tag. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources which dispute its status as fallacious then you're welcome to include them. However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather the claim, or more commonly the implication, that purely because something is "natural" it is good or benign and because something is "unnatural" it must be bad or harmful; its use is common among snake oil pedlers who imply that the naturalness of their products is proof enough of their efficacy and safety rather than any empirical evidence. Regardless, the claim that this page is somehow just an ideological dig at environmentalists is ridiculous.

By the way Misplaced Pages convention is for new discussions to go at the bottom of the page. (moved) 94.194.86.160 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is first objection after the page was put up for deletion 1 week and redirected to naturalistic fallacy#appeal_to_nature from editor who reverted it and other small edits to naturalistic fallacy.Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"However you seem to misunderstand the fallacy, it is not 'any preference for nature' (whatever that means) which is fallacious but rather.. "

- That was my summary of the misunderstanding which this page is built on, not my explaination of naturalistic fallacy (clearly).

I do not need to cite reliable sources to draw attention to the problems in this page, firstly because this page cites no reliable sources, secondly, because basic experience of philosophy would inform that this typical statement is wrong: "This fallacy is exemplified, for instance, on some labels and advertisements for alternative herbal remedies."

FYI Advertisements, are not philosophical statements. If they were then "fresh food is good for you" would be as much of an example as an appeal to nature as that one i just quoted and the many other 'greenwash' political statements which this article contains.

To clarify; 'fresh' is philosophically speaking -a natural property, the naturalistic fallacy states that it is not 'freshness' which can confer goodness, yet as we can see in many contexts, freshness can very often be said to be a good thing ) The mistake you have made is confusing metaphysics with physics, and the natures of things, with natural things.

I believe this page is so bad, that no self respecting wp:philosophy editor will attempt to defend it, even if they were politicaly inclined to. I had it up for deletion for over a week, and no one defended. It was an experienced editor, who redirected it to the properly written naturalistic fallacy article, which can be seen to explicity refute this articles position.

It is odd that you are aware of wp convention, yet editing from an unregistered ip. Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

After Page Was Resurrected'

Full Deletion Discussion/ Expert Review

WP:REFACTOR: The above unsigned text was added by Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion / Expert Review

I believe the subject of this page is commonly misunderstood, and the page itself carrys the misunderstanding under the credentials of wp:philosophy. The page is only sourced to 2 private blogs, and a non-philosophical article from cancer.org. It contains mostly erroneous and politicised statements and links.

I put it up for deletion, and it was redirected by another experienced editor to a properly written section for 'appeal to nature' in naturalistic fallacy

Due to the complexety of philosophical work, and misapplication of this concept here and in other non-philosophical discussions. I do not believe as an amature, i could resolve the conflict with the editor attempting to restore this page now. But i have read well on this in the course of my edits, and can provide stubstantial links to refute the page here, if required. (Although i did expect the problems to be obvious) Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

These books have been added to the references,

• Baggini, Julian (2004). Making sense: philosophy behind the headlines. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0192805065.
• Flew, Antony (1998). How to Think Straight: An Introduction to Critical Reasoning. Prometheus Books. ISBN 9781573922395.

Along with candid display of the POV arguments which are contested here.

The main question is, is this an established philosophical term or a populist term? What proper philosophical texts do we have to define the meaning and context of this terms use in philosophy? Sensibly, has modern philosophy established that all non-philosophical appeals to nature are invalid? Does this article not seem to indicate that, incredible claim?

Even if this opening statement where to be confirmed >"Appeal to nature is a fallacy of relevance consisting of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial."< Would it not be wp:philosophy's duty to enquiring minds to explain its context and limits of applicability to non-metaphysical cases? Lisnabreeny (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Philosophical usage of the term

A search for the term returns many informal/private definitions but formal/academic defintions are impossible to come by. Considering the potential ramifications of the argument being true, that all appeals to nature are fallacious, we need at least one formal philosophical substantiation of that. I have found that the term is mostly used neutraly, like this example in the intro to: "What is Nature: Culture, Politics and the non-Human" by Kate Soper] Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is presuming, instead of explaining, what an "appeal" is (i.e. that it is always to the Truth) and what "nature" is supposed to be (that it is always Good). This is so reductive as to make the rest of the discussion incoherent. The article needs to be wiped clear, and replaced with something more helpful that says what place "appeals" have in "arguments".

So:

An appeal to nature is a form of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a source of intelligibility for its claims, and which relies on the normative or ethical content of that concept for its cogency and/or validity.

You don't need anything more, the rest should be moved to an article on fallacies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkinxyz (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the clarification needs work... but some sort of clarification is needed. Have you closed the AfD, it doesn't say it's closed? I strongly disagree that the rest should be moved to an article on fallacies.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved now, either. Don't know how to close the AfD, but if you read it, it's clear. The person who made the proposal is trying to rewrite the article in the text of the discussion there. Walkinxyz (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that's actually what the user wants, but Lisnabreeny should probably make that call... an admin, just restored the tag. I don't think it will end up being deleted, but I'm not inclined to do a lot of work on it with an AfD hanging over it either. I think we're pretty much in agreement about everything then; the adjustments I made to your changes were just to dampen the inevitable pendulum effect, if you know what I mean. ^_^

I have to run this afternoon, but I'll take a closer look this evening. Please feel free to adjust back if there's anything I should have taken into consideration.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to say that the new lead and the rewording of the newly titled section on fallacies were introduced to make clear that, even if occasionally (or too often) fallacious, the "appeal to nature" in argument cannot be coherently understood as primarily a fallacy, nor can any given appeal to nature be so considered. The wording "sometimes considered" is intended to restore neutral POV on this topic, since it seemed prejudicial to a number of reviewers that the article should take so much of its time discussing this aspect as if it were the only relevant aspect. There are surely other aspects that are just as relevant, and they await inclusion in the article. Walkinxyz (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

When i put the article up for deletion, i wanted it deleted because I had asked for more experienced help with it for some weeks. And a reasonable, though small section exists in naturalistic fallacy to redirect to. It was actualy deleted and redirected but then resurrected, so i began the more substantial campaign, during which i mentioned that experienced improvement might be an alternative. I never tried to rewrite this article, i wouldnt presume to without guidance from a philosopher with some experience. I wrote to Walkinxyz in the reviewtalk, this is how i would start this article on appeals to nature:

The 'appeal to nature is' an argument of exceptional merit or an informal 'given'. Appeals to nature most often tend in someway to be perfectly true because of the existential, evolved, omnipresent properties of nature (one of the most important and scrutinised concepts in philosophy and the history of science) - - - - Of course that would be ridiculous! But i think not harder to establish with pop sources than the previous intros.

But in my example article in the deletion review, i tried to be quite straight down the middle, along with a couple of 'corrective' sections for what has been. The thing is there are two sides here, of the light understanding of nature and its appeal in philosophy. And this article has been one sided, and quite confused by that. Machine Elf, i think we both have everything to learn with this concept, but lets not pretend the outcome is failed or given without need for investigation, like many popular sources do. Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lisnabreeny, I could care less what you think I have to learn and I'll thank you to focus on content and keep your comments about other editors to yourself from now on. Is that understood?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a horrible response in what was a genuine appeal to your nature. I do not understand you. What comments about editors are you refering to that i must keep to myself? Lisnabreeny (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am looking into how to close the deletion review, and will try tomorrow. Please do not do this before, if the text of the review page will be lost. Lisnabreeny (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just announce you'd like to withdraw the AfD that was made on your behalf and someone will eventually close it for you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible appeals to nature in popular conciousness

Popular examples in the page could be discussed here. There will be to and fro and consensus may be impossible. I for one am willing to look for examples of truely fallacious appeals to nature to include in the article. I will put cases here and request comment on them. Hopefuly we can find fallacious and meritous examples which we can agree on:

Proposed meritous appeals

• The case of BSE: For some years there was an argument that the inclusion of processed beef in cow feeds was dangerously unnatural, because cows do not naturally eat other cows, or even other carrion (as pigs can). Without any known evidence of danger from doing this, the practice went ahead, despite those concerned with it. This resulted in the dangerous new disease called 'BSE' in cows, and nvCJD in humans, directly caused by argueably very unnatural practice of cows digesting their own protiens. A Similar prion disease exist in sheep Scrapie. Also when people practice cannibalism, particularly eating nervous tissue, this kind of disease can result - Kuru. Are there merits to an appeal to nature in this case? Lisnabreeny (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you have a WP:RS that says it's a "meritous appeal to nature"... I have no idea—I know from my friends in England the mad cow thing is a more widely recognizable issue there than it is where I live.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are at least many newspaper reports about this situation which i believe could be more substantialy presented as a valid popular appeal to nature than the previous advertisements and claims, which were included as popular fallacious appeals to nature (most of which i regarded as failing on other grounds, but am willing to revise). Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed fallacious appeals

• the Sophists were the first to challenge “the appeal to nature tended to mean an appeal to the nature of man treated as a source for norms of conduct. To Greeks this appeal was not very novel. It represented a conscious probing and exploration into an area wherein, according to their whole tradition of thought, lay the true source for norms of conduct.”

This quote related to a specific appeal to nature (or number of) described in the text. I would like to discuss its meaning, whether or not they are fallacious, what makes them so. It could be informative. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, none of these are "proposed", they are in the article. The history of the term going back to the sophists is not a "fallacious appeal". If you feel it "related to a specific appeal to nature (or number of) described in the text" I would suggest you specifically explain what you mean and say which ones.

Please start a new section if you want to discuss its meaning and please explain:

"whether or not they are fallacious"

I have no idea what question you mean to discuss. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• the claim of foods, such as "all-natural" wheat, which is usually a hybridised plant that was bred by artificial selection.

• some natural things have undesirable properties, for example: old age, sickness, and death.

• Conversely, modern medicines might be considered unnatural, (because they are manufactured rather than found in nature), nonetheless, they cause very desirable effects and their dosage can be controlled with precision.

• some labels and advertisements for alternative herbal remedies. The labels often have the phrase "all-natural" to assert that the product is safe. The idea that natural herbs and plants are always safe ignores the many toxic plants found in nature (hemlock, nightshade, belladonna, poisonous mushrooms, to name a few) and any possible side effects the herbs might have.

• Cocaine, for instance, is an "all-natural" medicine derived from the coca plant, and which was prescribed for many years for everything from chest colds to depression, yet it is highly addictive and can wreak havoc on the body's organs.

• Whether a product is "all-natural" or not is irrelevant in determining its safety or effectiveness.

• The presence of this fallacy is manifest in the logic behind certain objections to evolution, specifically objections to evolution's morality. Those who object for this reason assume that if behaviors such as polygamy, infanticide and violence are shown to be natural, that would make them acceptable.

• This misunderstanding has fueled some animosity towards evolutionary biologists, for example sociobiology was criticized from this angle in the latter half of the twentieth century. (See also sociobiological theories of rape.) Others, while not believing 'natural' to be 'right' themselves, assume that those advancing evolutionary theories do. This objection should not be confused with the closely related criticism that biologists in these fields are suggesting genetic determinism.

• This fallacy is often present in arguments for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs such as peyote. This excludes, of course, legalization arguments that use the methods of biochemistry and medical science to weigh the effects of marijuana and peyote.

The article includes many possible examples of fallacious appeals. I have listed them out here to discuss each over time.

unsigned content by Lisnabreeny

Except for the Sophists, which is not a "fallacious appeal" they're not "proposed", they're in the article, and while I think most could be removed, I don't see the point of listing everything completely out of context here. I suggest focusing on one thing at a time—at any rate, you'll find people are more willing to participate if you do.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Respectfuly, I would like to remove all the examples from the article now which editors do not wish to discuss. Lisnabreeny (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I find that far too drastic. As I've said, I think these should be dealt with individually. I think editing should proceed in a normal manner, unless there's something specific you'd like to discuss.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Post Review Discussion

The speedy keep feels a bit... speedy, as my own position was one of knock it down and rebuild, due to the critical problem which prompted the delete request.

I posted above a list of the cases made in the old article, for the purpose of isolating which ones editors want to bring over and scrutinising them, and the purpose of balancing POV with what i believe are valid appeals, which not doubt will need scrutinising too.

I am still asorbing the clinical clarity of the new intro written by Walkinxyz, and am interested to read further. Lisnabreeny (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lisnabreeny, "knock it down and rebuild" was what you mistakenly thought could result from the AfD but that's not how it works.

There's a lot of changes that can be made... rather than focusing on "knock it down", I would suggest you focus on "rebuild" and imagine the article undergoing a transformation from where it's at now, to where you want to see it go.

There is no "old article"; there is no "bring it over"; there is only this article. As I said, I think filling this page with a long, out-of-context list wasn't very helpful. I know you mean well, but if there are specific things you'd like to discuss, you'll get a better response by presenting them in small bite-size proportions; so folks can nibble. Make sense?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Start-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles