“天然”食物更健康？不一定！

????食品行業及其最為偏執的批評者紛紛利用“訴諸于天然”這一邏輯謬論來滿足自身利益。波?貝內特（Bo Bennett）在他的網站“邏輯謬誤”（Logically Fallacious）中寫道，“很多人將其作為默認的信仰”。他在這一極具邏輯性的網站中逐一列舉了各種邏輯謬誤。如果“天然的”真的存在，那么科學可以根據其“天然度”來進行評估。當然，這是不存在的，原因有兩點：首先，“天然”一詞沒有經得起推敲的定義；再者，即便“天然度”可以衡量，其結果對我們來說也沒有什么意義。貝內特寫道，“有很多天然的事物要好于非天然的事物，然而在評價時，我們在使用‘天然度’的同時還應使用其他的標準?！彼嬲]讀者們：“記住，大自然有時也會毫不猶豫地將你扔進垃圾桶，然后讓你自生自滅?！?/p>

????托馬斯?霍布斯深知這一點。這位17世紀的英國哲學家倡導社會契約、人類對制度和社會秩序的需求以及進步的一般概念。他做出了著名的論斷：人類在有序社會出現之前便處于“天然狀態”。在那個時候，他寫道，生命是“孤獨、貧苦、骯臟、野蠻和短暫的?！保ㄘ敻恢形木W）

????譯者：翔

????Both the food industry and its most rabid critics leverage the “Appeal to Nature” logical fallacy, or “Argumentum ad Naturam,” to their own benefit. “Many people adopt this as a default belief,” writes Bo Bennett at his site Logically Fallacious, where, logically enough, he catalogs logical fallacies. If “natural” meant anything at all, science would evaluate things based on their “naturalness.” But of course it doesn’t, both because there’s no workable definition for “natural,” and because even if “naturalness” could be measured, it wouldn’t tell us anything meaningful. “There are many natural things that are better than unnatural,” Bennett writes, “but they must be evaluated based on other criteria besides the ‘naturalness,'” He advises readers: “Keep in mind that Mother Nature is the kind of mother who wouldn’t hesitate to throw you in a dumpster and leave you there to die.”

????Thomas Hobbes knew this. The 17th century British philosopher, who championed the social contract, the need for institutions and social order, and the general notion of progress, famously described mankind in its “state of nature,” before humans started living in organized societies. At that time, he wrote, life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”