Talk:Wisdom of repugnance

Wikipedia is not your term paper

Sources should be moved to footnotes, they do not belong as part of a narrative. More sources needed. Tone should be more formal. —Trevyn 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Relevance?

"Kass's real motives for proposing and supporting the concept are also brought into question as a result of his close ties to conservative politicians, and his personal opposition to feminism, gay rights, abortion and other socio-political issues. The wisdom of repugnance has been criticized as an attempt to politicize science, and to justify irrational ideological objections to scientific progress and research."

I moved this portion from the article proper because it seems irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether wisdom of repugnance is a valid argument, thus the particulars of Kass's supposed political views are suspect material: he is not even the rightful topic of the article. Additionally, the statements use passive voice and contain weasel words. 209.30.170.226 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More weasel words

"The controversial concept has been characterised as a "disgust-based morality" and is regarded by many as pseudoscientific and an example of the naturalistic fallacy."

Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words for guidelines. "[H]as been characterized" by whom? "[I]s regarded by many"...? The whole sentence above has no place in this article.

Origin of the term?

The book cited wasn't published until 2002 (according to the Library of Congress US). It appears that the actual coinage came from a New Republic article (June 2, 1997), which was later included in the book. I'm 98% sure this is the case. If anyone has any more info on, please advise. Otherwise I'll change the article in the next few days. --Cody.Pope 10:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand

I can't understand the explanation section. And why is it smaller than the origin and criticism sections? --AnY FOUR! (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

I can't understand the explanation section. And why is it smaller than the origin and criticism sections? --AnY FOUR! (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings

I have the notion that we can work someone of Tolkien's wise prose into this article. Specifically, a line about expecting one of Sauron's agents to 'look fairer and feel fouler'. Anyone know what part I mean? I think it was Frodo referring to Strider. Anyway, is there a place for this in here? Vranak (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

deleted unsourced speculation

I deleted the following:

'The wisdom of repugnance is often used to justify so-called "knee-jerk" negative reactions to cloning (particularly of humans), genetic engineering, and other contentious subjects. One who adheres to this thesis may consider it unnecessary ("in crucial cases") to examine an issue logically, or to debate dissenting arguments.'

No source for the first sentence, and the second is just speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaforthetillerman (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism heading is misleading

It can almost be read as a criticism of the *acknowledgement* of the logical fallacy rather than the logical fallacy itself. I am not suggesting that a different word to 'criticism' be used, but perhaps the following paragraph could help to clarify this more.