Subject: 
             Re: [evol-psych] Huxleyan dualism of Dawkins and EP
        Date: 
             Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:42:38 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
       From: 
             Irwin Silverman 
 Organization: 
             York University
         To: 
             Keith Sutherland 
         CC: 
             David Wolpert , Larry Arnhart ,
             [email protected]




On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Keith Sutherland wrote:


> Please, let us not fall for the naturalist fallacy!   
(snip)
> Given that the natural homeostatic temperature of blood 
> temperature in mammals is 98.5%F, we can deduce that mammals 
> therefore "ought" to reside within a range of ambient temperatures 
> derived from this biological fact ... then as normative 
> morality is one of the principal modulators of human nature, how then is 
> the social organisation of humankind different in principle from the 
> first, equally biological, fact?
(snip)
> One of these days philosophers are going to have to admit that the 
> naturalistic fallacy is just a hangover from the days when it was 
> unfashionable to believe in human nature. 

        Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I understood the
naturalistic fallacy to assert that 'what "is" does not NECESSARILY 
correspond to what "ought to be" and not that "what is, NEVER corresponds
to what "ought to be"