An acquaintance informed me, relating to the harmful effects various materials have upon his health and well-being, that it is 'artificial' substances that are the culprits.

It seems to me that this opinion of his is unfounded UNLESS two conditions obtain: one is that there is indeed a real difference of category between natural (N) and artificial (A) - a difference that goes deeper than mere language usage as set out in a dictionary; the other is that there is an observed statistical association between members of category (A) and adverse clinical symptoms and that, moreover, there there is no such association between members of category (N) and clinical symptoms.

Clearly, in default of a real category difference, statistical studies of the kind envisaged would be ungrounded.

I claim that the words natural and artificial are being used as buzzwords by my acquaintance; I suggest that he is neither using language, nor thinking thoughts, with due discipline.

Furthermore I question that he may be drifting into circularity - 'artificials harm me; this stuff harms me; that shows that this stuff is artificial - which is why it harms meš.

The word 'nature' and its cognates can be defined by such statements as nature is the totality of what has existed, exists, can exist - always excepting one possibly existing entity, namely, a possible creator causing it all to be possible. For those who postulate a creator the definition of nature is easy - nature comprises all that has been created - or, briefly 'nature' and 'the creation' are synonymous.

We are part of nature and 'our nature' is the sum of our essential attributes. One of those attributes is the ability, and necessity, to make artifacts. Artifact - the noun - is cognate with artificial - the adjective - and, since we cannot make artifacts in defiance of what is naturally possible, artificial is not categorically different from natural; the artificial is merely a human modification of the natural.

On this basis we might suppose that an Orwellian dichotomy - natural,good: artificial, bad - is unrealistic. What we can say, increasingly, is that some artifacts are so different from what, apart from our artifice, can exist that a problem can arise but it is a problem of degree, not of kind - a quantitative rather than a qualitative one. Some artifacts are 'more natural than others'. We cannot justify a sharp natural/artificial distinction without resort to fantasy and the buzzwords associated with it.