> Reducing this to the naturalistic fallacy is inappropriate.
> Notice the commenter said "most likely". He's using a heuristic.
They are using a purely appeal-to-nature-and-antiquity-without-any-other-justification heuristic. If your objection is that I should have said "appeal to nature and antiquity without any other justification" because you think "naturalistic fallacy" means something else (which it might), then ok let's go with that, but otherwise it's very appropriate.
"Most" likely is a decision about the balance of merit.
Show something beyond "people did it without chemical analysis" that doing one is actually better than doing the other, especially in the way being discussed by the article. Show that rubbing olive oil on your body won't likewise disrupt your oxidation field. Show that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in olive oil aren't individually disruptive to skin chemistry despite suspected or known links to cancers, cardiovascular disease, and poor fetal development.
> He said they got "some" things right. It's implied that they got a lot of other things wrong.
Picking which things were right and which ones were wrong requires analysis of the merits. They did none of that.
ps. Do we have a reason to call them "he"? I didn't see anything in their profile or comment history.
> Notice the commenter said "most likely". He's using a heuristic.
They are using a purely appeal-to-nature-and-antiquity-without-any-other-justification heuristic. If your objection is that I should have said "appeal to nature and antiquity without any other justification" because you think "naturalistic fallacy" means something else (which it might), then ok let's go with that, but otherwise it's very appropriate.
"Most" likely is a decision about the balance of merit.
Show something beyond "people did it without chemical analysis" that doing one is actually better than doing the other, especially in the way being discussed by the article. Show that rubbing olive oil on your body won't likewise disrupt your oxidation field. Show that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in olive oil aren't individually disruptive to skin chemistry despite suspected or known links to cancers, cardiovascular disease, and poor fetal development.
> He said they got "some" things right. It's implied that they got a lot of other things wrong.
Picking which things were right and which ones were wrong requires analysis of the merits. They did none of that.
ps. Do we have a reason to call them "he"? I didn't see anything in their profile or comment history.