Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division

Blogliasco, Italy:People&countries, Facebook

Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division

Preface

Originally published 20160609, slight revisions and additions 20251213.

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 I would not merely 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.

(Team Canada did win, 2025 note)

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.
--------------

The Fallacy of Division

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
 
Blackburn helpfully explains the converse fallacy...

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: Bo Bennett, PhD

References:

GOODMAN, M. F. (1993) First Logic. University Press of America.

Logically Fallacious: Fallacy of Division

(also known as: false division, faulty deduction, division fallacy) 

Description: Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of composition 

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. 

Explanation: The size of one’s house almost certainly does not mean that the doors will be smaller, especially by the same proportions. The size of the whole (the house) is not directly related to the size of every part of the house.

Logically Fallacious also explains the compositional fallacy

Logically Fallacious: Fallacy of Composition

(also known as: composition fallacy, exception fallacy, faulty induction) 

Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.

Example

'Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.'

------------

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

MILL, J. S. (1863) Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. 

MILL, J. S. (1972) Letter to Henry Jones (13 June 1868). In John M. Robson (ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill vol. XVI. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1413–4.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Brief Principles of Symbolic Expression: Vancouver is North of Los Angeles

Italy, People&countries: Facebook

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Brief Principles of Symbolic Expression: Vancouver is North of Los Angeles

To summarize the section:

An Introduction To Symbolic Logic: The Essential of Logical Structure (pp. 45-63).

Brief Principles of Symbolic Expression (p.62)

'(1) Radical distinction between term signs and relation signs.

(2) Avoidance of false suggestion.

(3) Precedence of logical exactness over any psychological advantages.

(4) Avoidance of traditionally pre-empted signs.

(5) Due attention to distinctness, compactness, and typographical simplicity.'

Langer explains that elements connected by a relation are called its terms. (49).

Relation: 'being North of'. (49). Relation sign: 'n' my add.

Terms: Montreal is 'North of' New York. (49). Term signs 'M' and 'N'.

Terms: Vancouver is 'North of'' Los Angeles, Term signs 'V' and 'L' (My add)

Therefore a possible use of symbolic logic with the terms:

M n N

V n L

This is consistent with what was presented on the post:

Briefly On Symbolic Suggestiveness: Chicago, Denver, New York 

Langer suggests for this set either:

C, D, and N

or

C, D, and Y

not

C, D, and NY (59) 

I would prefer C, D, and N to state that Chicago is between Denver and New York

Clarity of terms and signs, as documented above is essential to avoid false suggestion and depending more on psychology than logic with terms.

Based on Langer's work, it is important to avoid confusion by not using the terms 'NY', 'NYC' or 'LA' in symbolic logic. Using the term 'LA' could be understood, despite the obvious modern cultural use of 'LA' meaning Los Angeles in various contexts, as two locations. For example, a Los Angeles/Anaheim metropolitan area. This would be a metropolitan area in the context of professional sports such as baseball and hockey, as each sport has a franchise in both markets.

Thinking out of the box:

I will admit that on this point, this text may be a little dated (1953)(1967). In 2016, I could reasonably understand the use of NY and LA in modern symbolic language without significant confusion because I reason Western culture in 2016 uses abbreviated titles more than in Langer's era of the 1950's and 1960's. Culture is now less formal and this should be considered within symbolic logic.

Two corporate examples come to mind as in the historical companies from both our era and Langer's day, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken now known as 'KFC' and Dairy Queen, now known as 'DQ'.

A concern for the date and era of documented material cited was in particular emphasized to me within the British academic system.

But, even with that acknowledgment, I will respect Langer's professional approach in regard to the matter. Most of her presentation is timeless.

Lastly, in regard to pre-empted signs, the '=' sign and like should remain with classic mathematical and philosophical forms for clarity.  At he same time compactness and clarity in presentation is essential.

Vancouver 1977: From VanCityBuzz

The Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

Italy: People&countries, Facebook

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

Pirie

Immediately, one can connect the Latin term interrogationum with English terms interrogate, interrogation and related. An open dialogue is not desired by the interrogator, but instead there is a definite agenda in which certain responses are sought. This can be accomplished through an aggressive approach and by asking multiple questions, without allowing time for reasonable dialogue.

Pirie explains that this is the use of 'many questions' and 'the fallacy of the complex question.' (60).

Several questions are combined into one and these require yes or no answers and the person being asked has no opportunity to answer each question individually. (60).

This can be seen in interrogation techniques, but also in the context of debating when one debater attempts to bully the other debater through a barrage of questions while not allowing time for each point to be answered. Incidentally, in this situation, I would expose the intellectual bully and state that one will not be permitted to attempt to win an argument through this fallacious means. In other words, allow reasonable dialogue or the debate in ended.

Pirie explains that with this fallacy, in regard to the questions, 'All of them contain an assumption that the concealed question has already been answered affirmatively.' (61).

Not all the facts have necessarily been established with some of the questions. (61). 'Why did the chicken cross the road? (61). Why did the chicken come from KFC (my add)?  The author explains that these type of fallacious questions preclude answers such as 'There was none' (61), or 'it didn't'. (61).

'Why did Chucky, kill that other doll?', precludes 'He did not.'

This type of fallacious argumentation can be used by someone that is angry and/or emotional and wants to promote his/her agenda in an argument and does not desire to seriously ponder and consider the views of other.

Look for this fallacy within certain political, religious and personal issue debates when persons hold to positions emotionally more so than intellectually, and therefore do not want to seriously dialogue with the opponent. There is no emotional willingness to change view.

Logically fallacious

Logically fallacious referencing Menssen & Sullivan (2007) 

Cited

'Complex Question Fallacy plurium interrogationum (also known as: many questions fallacy, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, trick question, false question)

Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact. 

Logical Form: Question X is asked that requires implied claim Y to be accepted before question X can be answered.' (End citation)

My example: How many times a day do you stop believing in Reformed theology?

(There will not be a times a day that my worldview changes)

Logically fallacious referencing Menssen & Sullivan (2007)

Cited

'Exception: It is not a fallacy if the implied information in the question is known to be an accepted fact. How long can one survive without water? Here, it is presumed that we need water to survive, which very few would deny that fact.' (End citation)

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

MENSSEN S & SULLIVAN T.D  (2007) The Agnostic Inquirer: Revelation from a Philosophical Standpoint, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Complex-Question-Fallacy 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

Jude/Problem of Suffering

Castle Sanflaouro Messinia, Greece: trekearth

An aspect of my biblical training is online audio bible. The smaller books, as example, can be listened to again and again in one sitting, or while I am working out.

This section from Jude has impacted me:

Jude 1:5

Jude 5 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that [a]the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, [b]subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

Footnotes:

Jude 1:5 Two early mss read Jesus
Jude 1:5 Lit the second time

Jude 5 English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[a] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Footnotes:

Jude 1:5 Some manuscripts although you fully knew it, that the Lord who once saved

Jude 5 King James Version (KJV)

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
---

From these three Biblical versions, it is Scripturally documented that among those that were brought out of the land of Egypt, some were destroyed because of lack of belief.

Within Jude, this Exodus group without belief is compared to fallen angels (6) and Sodom and Gomorrah (7), and therefore it can be reasoned that all three groups mentioned did not have a belief, trust and faith in God as revealed in the Hebrew Bible. This God, further revealed as triune in the New Testament. This would not be merely an intellectual belief in God, which fallen angels would posses having experienced God in a supernatural context. Strong documenting that belief here as written is tied to faith, to entrust, to trust. (77).

Although the Jude text is in a sense commenting on the older Exodus text, it is also provided in light of progressive revelation and therefore can be taken as Scripturally authoritative in this non-exhaustive article context. I do acknowledge the original Hebrew Bible revelation and for example, Exodus 32 and the 'molten calf' (NASB) episode where a significant lack of belief was demonstrated by the people of the Exodus, however, again this article is intentionally short and not-exhaustive.

From

Bible Hub

'Strong's Concordance pisteuó: to believe, entrust
Original Word: πιστεύω
Part of Speech:
Verb Transliteration: pisteuó
Phonetic Spelling: (pist-yoo'-o)
Short Definition: I believe, have faith in Definition: I believe, have faith in, trust in; pass: I am entrusted with.'

 '...James 2:19; acknowledgment joined to appropriate trust, absolutely, Jude 1:5; εἰς Θεόν, John 12:44; John 14:1; equivalent to to believe and embrace what God has made known either through Christ or concerning Christ: τῷ Θεῷ,'

David F. Payne explains from Jude 1: 5 that these people were 'guilty of presumption, lack of faith, or gross immortality and they had all paid the dreadful penalty.'

In New Testament terms, the unbelieving people of the Exodus are grouped with fallen angels and those from Sodom and Gomorrah. These are those that do not believe in the Lord with trusting faith.

Yesterday, I received via email a non-exhaustive theological opine that mentioned the Israelites in the Exodus context. Christians were warned against the dangers of complaining against God as it is (paraphrased) a very serious sin, a great sin. The concept I gathered, being that God meets the needs of his people and therefore not to complain because real needs will always be met. It was stated (paraphrased) that our supposed 'needs' are often 'greeds'.

In the past a pastor at the church I attend has stated that many times our supposed needs while suffering are 'felt needs'.

I can agree that at times supposed needs can be 'greeds' and 'felt needs'. This is often true in a materialistic Western culture.

However, when I connected the written theological opine with my online audio learning, based on the Jude text, it was clear that unbelieving people of the Exodus were not destroyed by God for complaining about supposed unmet needs. To be clear, the email opine did not deal directly with the Jude text.

Therefore:

I can acknowledge that complaining to and against God can be a serious and great sin. But, in light of my significant, theodicy, problem of evil and problem of suffering research and analysis, I reason that God is infinite, holy and the only being that exists by necessity. His will is always prioritized over human needs, both real and unreal needs. Unreal needs could be defined as wants.

There are real human unmet needs within the problem of suffering, such as blind persons that cannot see and starving children in Africa that do not have sufficient food and drink. Some of these persons are Christians and/or belong to Christian families and therefore could be defined as God's people from a New Testament perspective. At the same time acknowledging God is the creator of all persons and his Hebrew Bible relationship with the people of Israel.

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) 'Jude' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.