 |
| Blogliasco, Italy:People&countries, Facebook |
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Composition Fallacy
'The fallacy of composition occurs when it is claimed that what is true for individual members of a class is also true for the class considered as a unit.' (62).
'It is fallacious to suppose that what is true of the parts must also be true of the new entity they collectively make up.' (62).
'This must be a good orchestra because each of its members is a talented musician.' (62).
Pirie explains this is fallacious as members in the orchestra might not play and perform well in unison with others. (62).
For clarity with this weighty material:
Individual to corporate
I t C (My add)
Each member is a talented musician, therefore it must be a good orchestra. (My add)
I would opine that it can take less than each member to not be a good 'team player' to cause an orchestra not to be considered good sounding, it may simply take one or so 'bad apples.'
Pirie then uses the European football example of a club transferring in top players, that are soon transferred out because they do not fit in well with the team. (62).
Therefore it would fallacious to state:
As it has the best individual talent, therefore, Team Canada will win the 2016, World Cup of Hockey.
Consider:
According to experts and commentators, Team Canada has had the best individual talent almost every 'best on best' tournament, but wins most of the tournaments, not all of them.
In my view, other propositions are required to strengthen a related argument, although with changes in terminology.
Team Canada has excellent individual talent.
Team Canada has excellent individual skill.
Team Canada has players that have won together as a team.
Team Canada has several Stanley Cup champions.
Team Canada has several Olympic Gold Medalists in Ice Hockey.
Team Canada will have home ice advantage.
Therefore:
Team Canada could reasonably win the 2016 World Cup of Hockey in Toronto.
Blackburn defines this fallacy similarly:
'...arguing because something is true of members of a group or collection, it is true of the group as a whole. (71).
The following example is provided:
'J.S. Mill appears to argue that since each person desires just their own happiness, people together desire the common happiness. (71).
Blackburn is contrast explains that nobody desires the common happiness. (71). Blackburn means based on Mill's philosophy, and that is reasonable.
My own view would be that almost all persons desire their own happiness (some mentally ill as possible exceptions), and some persons desire the common happiness.
Logically Fallacious
'Example
Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.'
The Fallacy of Division
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Blackburn once again helpfully explains the converse fallacy, as he did with accident fallacy and its converse version, that I hopefully explained well in two articles.
The fallacy of division is therefore stating:
Corporate to individual
C t I (my add)
'If something is true of a group, then it is also true of individuals belonging to it.' (71).
Example of fallacy:
Real Madrid won the UEFA Champions League, 2016, therefore it must have all the best players.
Logically Fallacious
'Example:
'His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood, therefore, his doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet high.'
Composition Fallacy
'The fallacy of composition occurs when it is claimed that what is true for individual members of a class is also true for the class considered as a unit.' (62).
'It is fallacious to suppose that what is true of the parts must also be true of the new entity they collectively make up.' (62).
'This must be a good orchestra because each of its members is a talented musician.' (62).
Pirie explains this is fallacious as members in the orchestra might not play and perform well in unison with others. (62).
For clarity with this weighty material:
Individual to corporate
I t C (My add)
Each member is a talented musician, therefore it must be a good orchestra. (My add)
I would opine that it can take less than each member to not be a good 'team player' to cause an orchestra not to be considered good sounding, it may simply take one or so 'bad apples.'
Pirie then uses the European football example of a club transferring in top players, that are soon transferred out because they do not fit in well with the team. (62).
Therefore it would fallacious to state:
As it has the best individual talent, therefore, Team Canada will win the 2016, World Cup of Hockey.
Consider:
According to experts and commentators, Team Canada has had the best individual talent almost every 'best on best' tournament, but wins most of the tournaments, not all of them.
In my view, other propositions are required to strengthen a related argument, although with changes in terminology.
Team Canada has excellent individual talent.
Team Canada has excellent individual skill.
Team Canada has players that have won together as a team.
Team Canada has several Stanley Cup champions.
Team Canada has several Olympic Gold Medalists in Ice Hockey.
Team Canada will have home ice advantage.
Therefore:
Team Canada could reasonably win the 2016 World Cup of Hockey in Toronto.
Blackburn defines this fallacy similarly:
'...arguing because something is true of members of a group or collection, it is true of the group as a whole. (71).
The following example is provided:
'J.S. Mill appears to argue that since each person desires just their own happiness, people together desire the common happiness. (71).
Blackburn is contrast explains that nobody desires the common happiness. (71). Blackburn means based on Mill's philosophy, and that is reasonable.
My own view would be that almost all persons desire their own happiness (some mentally ill as possible exceptions), and some persons desire the common happiness.
Logically Fallacious
'Example
Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.'
The Fallacy of Division
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Blackburn once again helpfully explains the converse fallacy, as he did with accident fallacy and its converse version, that I hopefully explained well in two articles.
The fallacy of division is therefore stating:
Corporate to individual
C t I (my add)
'If something is true of a group, then it is also true of individuals belonging to it.' (71).
Example of fallacy:
Real Madrid won the UEFA Champions League, 2016, therefore it must have all the best players.
Logically Fallacious
'Example:
'His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood, therefore, his doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet high.'
