Fallacy of Composition
Fallacies of Ambiguity
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fallacy Name:
Fallacy of Composition
Alternative Names:
None
Category:
Fallacy of Grammatical Analogy
Explanation:
The Fallacy of Composition involves taking attributes of part of an object or
class and applying them to the entire object or class. The argument being made
is that because every part has some characteristic, then the whole must
necessarily also have that characteristic.
This is the general form that the Fallacy of Composition takes:
1. All parts of X have the property P. Thus, X itself has the property P.
Explanation and Discussion:
Here are some examples of the Fallacy of Composition:
2. Because the atoms of a penny are not visible to the naked eye, then the penny itself must also not be visible to the naked eye.
3. Because everything in the universe is caused, then the universe itself must also be caused.
4. "...it makes more sense that there is an eternal God who always existed than to suppose the universe itself has always existed, because nothing in the universe is eternal. Since no part of it lasts forever, then it is only reasonable that all its parts put together were not there forever either."
5. Because all of the components of this car are light and easy to carry, then the car itself must also be light and easy to carry.
6. Because each member of this baseball team is the best in the league for their position, then the team itself must also be the best in the league.
7. Because cars create less pollution than buses, cars must be less of a pollution problem than buses.
8. With a laissez-faire capitalist economic system, each member of society must act in a way that will maximize his or her own economic interests. Thus, society as a whole will achieve the maximum economic advantages.
These examples are also good ways to see the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. It isn't possible to see that there is an error simply by looking at the structure of the argument being made.
Instead, we have to look at the content of the claims. When we do that, we can see that the premises are insufficient to demonstrate the truth of the conclusions. The mere fact that something is true of the parts is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that it is also necessarily true of the whole.
Even famous philosophers have committed the Fallacy of Composition. Here is an example from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics:
9. Is he [man] born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these?
Here we can see it argued that, just because the parts (organs) of a person have a "higher function," that therefore the whole (a person) also has some "higher function." But people and their organs are not analogous like that. For example, part of what defines an animal's organ is function is serves - can the whole organism also be defined that way?
But even if we assume for a moment that it is true that humans do have some "higher function," it is not at all clear that functionality is the same as the functionality of their individual organs. Because of this, the term function would be used in multiple ways in the same argument, resulting in the Fallacy of Equivocation.
But that is not to say that what is true of the parts can't be true of the whole. It is possible to make arguments similar to the above which are not fallacious and which have conclusions which follow validly from the premises. Here are some examples:
10. Because the atoms of a penny have mass, then the penny itself must have mass.
11. Because all of the components of this car are entirely white, then the car itself must also be entirely white.
So why do these arguments work - what is the difference between them and the previous three? Because they are informal fallacies, you have to look at the content - the structures of all five are the same. When you examine the content, you will find something special about the characteristics which are being applied.
In #10, you will note that the penny itself has mass because the constituent atoms have mass. In #11, you will note that the car itself is entirely white because the parts are entirely white. A characteristic can be transferred from the parts to the whole when the existence of that characteristic in the parts is what will cause it to be true of the whole.
This is, in a sense, an unstated premise in the argument and depends upon our prior knowledge about the world. We know, for example, that while car parts might be lightweight, getting a whole lot together will likely create something that weighs a lot - and weighs too much to carry easily. A car cannot be made light and easy to carry just by having parts which are, individually, themselves light and easy to carry. Similarly, a penny cannot be made invisible just because its atoms are not visible to us.
When someone offers an argument like the above and you are skeptical that it is valid, you need to look very closely at the content of both the premise and the conclusion. You may need to ask that the person demonstrate the necessary connection between a attribute being true of the parts and it also being true of the whole.
One important thing to note is that the Fallacy of Composition is similar to, but distinct from the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. This latter fallacy involves assuming that something is true of an entire class due to an atypical or small sample size. This is obviously different from making such an assumption based on an attribute which is indeed shared by all parts or members.
-->