 |
| trekearth |
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London
June 9
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).
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London
June 9 article
June 9
I stated:
Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division
'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).
---
Division according to Pirie is:
'The doppelganger of the fallacy of composition is that of division. When we attribute to the individuals in a group something which is only true of the group as a unit, we fall into the fallacy of division.' (85).
'Both of these form a fallacy of equivocation.' (85). This occurs because of the ambiguity of collective nouns. (85). 'The gospels are four in number. St. Mark's is a gospel, so St. Mark's is four in number.' (85).
Something should not be attributed to an individual, only because it is often attributed to a group.
Chucky is German, Germany has won four World Cups and three Euros in football; therefore Chucky is very good at football.
There is a danger of 'typecasting people according to the groups from which they emanate.' (86).
Leroy is African American and is therefore a fast sprinter.
From the June 9 article:
Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division
'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).
---
Division according to Pirie is:
'The doppelganger of the fallacy of composition is that of division. When we attribute to the individuals in a group something which is only true of the group as a unit, we fall into the fallacy of division.' (85).
'Both of these form a fallacy of equivocation.' (85). This occurs because of the ambiguity of collective nouns. (85). 'The gospels are four in number. St. Mark's is a gospel, so St. Mark's is four in number.' (85).
Something should not be attributed to an individual, only because it is often attributed to a group.
Chucky is German, Germany has won four World Cups and three Euros in football; therefore Chucky is very good at football.
There is a danger of 'typecasting people according to the groups from which they emanate.' (86).
Leroy is African American and is therefore a fast sprinter.
From the June 9 article:
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).
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London
June 9 article
