I strongly suggest using better sources for this. You should avoid using Wikipedia when things like the SEP[1] and IEP[2] are available. Also, "probabilistic" fallacies are not formal fallacies. E.g. something like the "gambler's fallacy" is not a de facto formal logical fallacy.
Further, the "Naturalistic Fallacy" isn't what you think it is. There's a difference between "argument from nature" or "the appeal to nature" (which is what you think it is), and G.E. Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy[3]. This is a pretty embarrassing mistake, especially if you'd like to be treated like an authority on the subject.
Further, the "Naturalistic Fallacy" isn't what you think it is. There's a difference between "argument from nature" or "the appeal to nature" (which is what you think it is), and G.E. Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy[3]. This is a pretty embarrassing mistake, especially if you'd like to be treated like an authority on the subject.
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/
[2] https://www.iep.utm.edu/
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/#Nat...