Doppelganger & Division

trekearth

Doppelganger & Division

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

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:

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

A confusing proposition?

Vancouver: Instagram

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

On page 90, under the header:

'Propositional Forms.'

Quote

'Every proposition in a formal context is either true or false. We may not know which it is; but we may rest assured that it is one or the other.

An expression like:

a fm b (90).

Here, a is the fellowman of b or a is in fellowship with b. 'This is true with one set of values and false with another...' (90).

r (Russ) is in fellowship with c (Chucky, my friend since 1989).

r fm c. This is true.

r (Russ) is in fellowship with c (Chucky, the murderous doll).

r fm c. This is false.

The author further explains that:

The expression "a fm b"...is neither true nor false. (90). It is not a proposition at all. 'It is only the empty form of a proposition.' (90). It has to be filled in with particular elements to be an actual proposition. (90).

In my above examples, I filled in with elements. I defined them.

Examples of propositions from my PhD, Wales.

God reveals himself in the Bible

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God

God is close to all persons

God is beyond his creation

God is in all things

I did not merely present, for example:

a reveals himself in b. By the text standards, that would not be a proposition.

Each question was followed by AS A NC D DS (Agree Strongly, Agree, Not Certain, Disagree, Disagree Strongly).

It is only when all its terms are fixed, it requires a truth value. It then becomes propositional, a proposition. (91).

If no values are assigned to terms, then it is not a proposition. It is an expression. (90).

Langer admits, 'The name is not very fortunate', as in these expressions are called 'propositional forms' even though they are not propositions! (91). This may add to the confusion for those trying to learn symbolic logic.

This type of communication would be at times technical, but appealing to the use of a textbook in the construction of propositions would be reasonable.

Ironic that this presentation was hung on the wall at the pub by our table, where we had our post-Bible study, theology talk. But strangely, almost everyone at the table took a photo.

Matthew 6:9-13

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 11 ‘Give us this day [a]our daily bread. 12 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from [b]evil. [c][For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]

Footnotes:

a Matthew 6:11 Or our bread for tomorrow
b Matthew 6:13 Or the evil one
c Matthew 6:13 This clause not found in early mss

Sweeping generalizations

New Westminster Quay

New West Minster Quay

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

'Dicto simpliciter is the fallacy of sweeping generalization.' (83).

'All atheists are immoral.'

Does one know the ethical and moral views of each and every atheist?

'Religion is the cause of the evils of the world.'

Which religion? They are not all the same in worldview. Is not some evil caused from non-religious sources?

Pirie:

To insist that the generalization must apply to each and every case, regardless of individual differences, is to commit the fallacy of  Dicto simpliciter.  (83).

He further that many of our statements are not universals and that this because at times there are accidental features which makes something an exception. (83).

About Education

Definition

'Dicto Simpliciter is a fallacy in which a general rule or observation is treated as universally true regardless of the circumstances or the individuals concerned. Also known as the fallacy of sweeping generalization, unqualified generalization, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, and fallacy of the accident (fallacia accidentis).'

This site then quotes Blackburn from 2016, a new version of the text I use:

'A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ("from the statement unqualified to the statement qualified") is the fallacy of arguing from a general to a particular case without recognizing qualifying factors: "If some snakes are harmless, then some snakes in this bag are harmless" (The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2016).'

This is another form of accident fallacy:

Composition fallacy June 9, 2016

Anecdote December 16, 2015

Accident fallacy November 29, 2015

Accident fallacy November 7, 2015

2 Peter 3: Brief Considerations

September 30, 2012: Second Peter

Admittedly, I have edited this post from 2012, more than once, This is because I am learning as I study.

I am less than dogmatic in regards to interpretation with 2 Peter 3, in a similar way to Hebrews 6 and related passages from James. I hope this suffices in the humility department.

Second Peter 3:9

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

William Barclay takes the perspective that when the text is stating that God does not want any to perish, like Paul in Romans in certain verses (Barclay lists 11: 32) it is in the context of God shutting persons out to unbelief. Barclay (1976: 343).

I stated in the September 30, 2012 article as 'You' is being addressed in (3), as in Christians:

'In context therefore, it is possible that Second Peter Chapter 3:9 is not directed to non-believers in regard to salvation but is directed to Christians in regard to repentance. It may be stating basically that the Lord is patient with you (Christians), not wishing for any of you to (perish/die) in a state of non-repentance.'

However:

If this is indeed relating to the unregenerate, although written to Christians, Erickson is helpful.

Quote:

‘…God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), yet he apparently he does not actually will for us all to be saved, since not everyone is saved.’ (361).

Quote

‘We must distinguish between two different senses of God’s will, which we will refer to as God’s “wish” (will1) and God’s will (will2).’ (361).

Will1 is God’s general intention and Will2 is God’s specific intention.

Or it could be stated Will1=God’s perfect will and Will2=God’s permissible will.

However, there is a theological and philosophical problem. If it is God’s eternal permissible will to save only some, then God caused this in a sense. I reason it can be traced to the fallen human nature that works through limited free will.

As my Hebrews professor told me at Columbia Bible College (paraphrased), although we all have a fallen nature outside of Christ by default, some have a fallen nature that will never accept Christ and be acceptable to God. Others will be regenerated.

Therefore, God’s eternal, perfect will would actually be for some to reject him and remain everlastingly outside of his Kingdom, although in a sense, God wishes it would be otherwise.

This places doubt that God's wish is God's perfect will. Rather it may be a divine wish. God wishes salvation for all (universalism) within his will, but it will not occur. God, in my view, could create significantly free finite creatures than remain morally perfect, in a finite sense. The classic example being angels that did not fall.

Does being made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1: 27) determine that sin and a fall must occur?

Jesus Christ was both God and man, and did not sin and fall. He is the example of human being as we know it, that did not sin and fall. The incarnation accepted. I find it difficult to believe that God needed to make human beings or human type beings that would or could sin and fall, in order for them to be significantly free. The atonement and resurrection of Christ was God's salvific plan for humanity. Those in Christ would eventually be restored to finite perfection. (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).

God is infinitely perfect, holy and free and cannot logically sin, but he understands evil infinitely well.

Perhaps a perfect finite creature, merely needs to understand evil, reasonably well within freedom?

This conclusion of my mine, however, prayerfully should not impact how I interpret certain passages such as from 2 Peter 3. Let the Scripture state what it states in context. 

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PAYNE. DAVID F.(1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.