Fallacy of composition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken into their constituent parts without any of those parts being breakable.

This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.

The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division.

Contents 1 Example 2 Application 3 Modo hoc Fallacy 4 References

[edit] Example

1. Atoms are not visible to the naked eye
2. Humans are made up of atoms
3. Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye^[1]

[edit] Application

In Keynesian macroeconomics, the "paradox of thrift" theory illustrates this fallacy: increasing saving (or "thrift") is obviously good for an individual, since it provides for retirement or a "rainy day," but if everyone saves more, it may cause a recession by reducing consumer demand. So here is one explicit argument (selected from a number of possibilities arising from these facts) that commits the fallacy of composition:

The thrift of any member of a group is beneficial to that member.
Therefore, the thrift of the group as a whole is beneficial to that group as a whole.

Commodity exports and dependency theory may also be used to demonstrate the fallacy of composition. Increases in the export of a certain commodity from one country may be beneficial to that country. However, exports of that commodity by many countries may flood the market, and thus drive down price, proving detrimental to the ensemble of exporting countries.^{[citation needed]}

Another example is the Tragedy of the Commons where an individual would benefit from his unlimited access to a finite resource but the collective unrestricted demand from the whole group would eventually doom the resource through over-exploitation.

[edit] Modo hoc Fallacy

The modo hoc, or "just this," fallacy is the informal error of assessing meaning to an existent based on the constituent properties of its material makeup while omitting the matter's arrangement. ^[2]For instance, metaphysical naturalism states that while matter and motion are all that comprise man, it cannot be assumed that the characteristics inherent in the elements and physical reactions that make up man ultimately and solely define man's meaning; for, an Edward Norton who is alive and well and an Edward Norton who has been chopped up into a stew are the same matter but it is obvious that the arrangement of that matter clarifies those different situational meanings.^[3]

[edit] References

v • d • e Informal fallacies Begging the question · Fallacy of distribution (Composition · Division) · Gambler's fallacy and its inverse · Many questions · Red herring fallacy · Special pleading Correlative-based fallacies False dilemma (Perfect solution) · Denying the correlative · Suppressed correlative Deductive fallacies Accident · Converse accident Inductive fallacies Biased sample · Conjunction fallacy · False analogy · Hasty generalization · Misleading vividness · Overwhelming exception Vagueness and ambiguity Continuum fallacy · False precision · Slippery slope Equivocation Equivocation · False attribution · Fallacy of quoting out of context · Loki's Wager · No true Scotsman · Reification Questionable cause Circular cause and consequence · Correlation does not imply causation (Cum hoc) · Post hoc · Regression fallacy · Single cause · Texas sharpshooter · Wrong direction List of fallacies · Other types of fallacy