Armchair science and the naturalistic fallacy
Suppose someone were persuaded by the philosophical argument that you can’t get an ought from an is. It seems to me that one could respond to this argument by saying that to say that is really armchair science. “Look, we are learning all these things about the brain. We are learning what kinds of behaviors helped our ancestors to survive in the past. We have learned this, that, and the other from chimp studies and other aspects of primate science. How can you say that you can’t get an ought from an is?”
It seem to me to be obvious that that is an inadequate reply, a gross missing of the point. There seems to be a confusion of categories here. So why when I argue that there is a problem getting a cognitive ought from a physical is, I am accused of armchair science?