I decided to fit that claim under "Naturalistic fallacy".

Agree?
I agree that it's good to see Spring finally made it back.

Unlike last year we might not get snow in April but it is snowing today.

We don't call the WINTER snow that falls during the Spring season a naturalistic fallacy for a reason:::::: Reason, because it's ludicrous.

In a scene to say English wasn't your best subject in school

A net used to catch a canary has a big enough hole for the same canary to fly out of if caught but yet the canary doesn't fly out.

There are no false events in nature they are only true events. What seems to be a false event may not have occurred yet.

What?

"In a scene to say English wasn't your best subject in school "

"There are no false events in nature they are only true events"

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Tue, Mar 19, 13 at 15:05

These are shades of the same thing, but what you are describing is an Appeal to Nature.

The Naturalistic Fallacy is more like "that which is good, is desirable; thus that which is desirable is good."

These kinds of arguments always come up in relation to sexual orientations and desires: "same-sex marriage is not natural, thus is bad"; or "eating cake is fun, thus is good." You can have your own opinion on these topics, but linking natural/fun to good/bad is not a valid argument.

It's hard to argue that nature is even good; and our view of nature is just a snapshot of what the world is like through its billions of years. In a way, environmentalism and protecting the natural state of things are selfish acts for humans. We are trying to maintain the environment to which we are accustomed. No matter how much we pollute and how many trees we chop down, nature doesn't care. The world will find a new balance with renewed diversity long after we have made our mess and are gone.

That said, I still don't step on spiders and I pick co-workers recyclables out of the trash. Oh, and I have a bottle of Foliage Pro coming to me from Amazon...

:) Ryan

Repeating again a Naturalistic fallacy CAN NO LONGER EXIST after the fact of it's existence.

Example JOE GW THE GARDEN PRO has a bag of chicken droppings that they got for free from a chicken coop to replace a certain synthetic fert for some plants in containers. The use of chicken droppings to be used as a fert is not a fallacy after they use it dude it's a fact.

Why he used is up to him,. lets just say maybe he don't listen to everything that you learn,why should he if he cant sort out if its false or truth ?

Soil is irrelevant.

as is air sun and water

On the farm as a boy we had four large chicken houses. One of our crops was eggs. One thing a boy is useful for is scraping the fresh chicken manure up from under the roosts. We had one hayfield that was mostly gravel and hard to get much of a stand of oats. Here is where we used the chicken manure. I don't remember ANY year, when were able to spread the right amount of manure so at least some of the hay did not get too tall and fall down before it could be mowed. This is still a problem to this day, that is using the right amount of natural fertilizer, at the right time to get results desired. Using unnatural fertilizer in my containers leaves me with no sense of guilt. Al

Gardenweb has educated me in botany and I am now enlightened.

Sometimes you scrape the chicken manure, and sometimes the chicken manure scrapes you :)

No doubt that creative gardening is a good idea and should be supported by factual observations and realistic results from any who choose to post comments should be allowed with out hinder.

It's also sometimes normal to get carried away and become overly creative and enthusiastically over express one persons individual ideals from past and present experiences.

Right or Wrong perhaps the few attempts to suggest there is no such a thing as a naturalistic fallacy the OP questioned might help their plants grow and provide results for them.