Yeah, I'm shamelessly asking for help with my homework. I don't think this will turn out like a typical homework help thread though because I think this could stir up a bit of discussion for those who are interested in logical fallacies, or at a minimum, people might enjoy digging around for some clips on this... or so I hope.
I'll start off with a definition and some examples from my textbook and then provide some basic examples.
The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows that the whole has that attribute too and the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole (Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 154).
Examples:
Each atom in this piece of chalk is invisible. Therefore, the chalk is invisible.
Maria likes anchovies. She also likes chocolate ice cream. Therefore, it is certain that she would like a chocolate sundae topped with anchovies.
As you guys can see, the conclusion is erroneous because the whole does not retain the same properties as the parts do. While Maria thinks the parts (anchovies, chocolate ice cream) are tasty, she probably wouldn't like the whole (choco/ancho sundae). While the parts (atoms) can't be seen with the eye, the whole (piece of chalk) certainly can be.
What I'm looking for are examples of this fallacy in movies, sticoms, advertisements, or any kind of popular media, newspapers and advertisements included. I can't really remember specific movies or shows that I've seen this in or have been unable to find them.
Ideas:
Guy sees girl from behind and notices that she has a nice ass. He concludes that she must be beautiful. - I can't think of any specific movie or sitcom that I've seen this in.
A medieval army attempts to smash down the gate of a castle. When unable to do so, they conclude that the castle must be impregnable. - Again, it seems like I've seen this in a movie, but can't think of one specifically.
A Subway advertisement introduces a new sub with marinated chicken, fresh relish, and sauteed mangoes. They imply that the sandwich will be delicious. - While examples of this nature that are less extreme won't even be fallacious, I think I've seen pretty bizarre combinations of food advertised that weren't delicious at all but disgusting.
Any other ideas are welcome.
I'm creating a presentation where I'd like to incorporate a few real-life examples and I've been rather stumped with this. Help is greatly appreciated.
Not really "popular culture" but definitely famous and of that nature
It puts a / in my URL for some reason, it shouldn't be there but i can't remove it
e.g. you shoot an arrow and it halves the distance to the target ad infinitum therefore it never reaches the target but only comes closer and closer by 50% everytime
Alright, one bump and then the mods can take this thread out back and shoot it.
Again, I'm just looking for vids of the following:
- Guy hears woman's voice over the phone and she sounds hot but turns out she's ugly. (Maybe in Deuce Bigalow?)
- Army attacks one area of the enemy but is unable to make progress, concludes that enemy is very strong.
Other ideas welcome, but those seemed to be ones that might exist more commonly in movies, etc. My internet is very slow right now, so I'm unable to really powerbrowse youtube.
On November 29 2007 04:42 citrus wrote: Alright, one bump and then the mods can take this thread out back and shoot it.
Again, I'm just looking for vids of the following:
- Guy hears woman's voice over the phone and she sounds hot but turns out she's ugly. (Maybe in Deuce Bigalow?)
- Army attacks one area of the enemy but is unable to make progress, concludes that enemy is very strong.
Other ideas welcome, but those seemed to be ones that might exist more commonly in movies, etc. My internet is very slow right now, so I'm unable to really powerbrowse youtube.
yeah yeah in deuce bigalow i think he calls that really really fat black chick and then when he goes to her house he pretends he's gay to get out of sex
On November 29 2007 04:42 citrus wrote: Alright, one bump and then the mods can take this thread out back and shoot it.
Again, I'm just looking for vids of the following:
- Guy hears woman's voice over the phone and she sounds hot but turns out she's ugly. (Maybe in Deuce Bigalow?)
In family guy, Quagmire sees a hotchick from behind but when she turns around she's like 300 pounds.
Frankly I don't think it's what you call fallacy of composition or whatever, it's just an idea related to 'don't judge a book by it's cover'.
- Army attacks one area of the enemy but is unable to make progress, concludes that enemy is very strong.
There are a lot of movies like that, usually comedies. A guy, through sheer coincidence, thwarts the hostile attempts of his enemy. But in reality the guy is weak and stupid. Mr. Bean or Get Smart is an example I guess.
I don't mean to go against the grain, again (sorry), but I think some of those examples are wrong. in the good examples given at the top, the point is that there are two things with two good features, that when they are combined or composed the good features complement each other badly, or fall away.
so each example needs:
two or more objects that both have good qualities when combined these become bad qualities.
so, for the example of the girl with the nice ass, you only have the nice ass. the proper example would be (although not good):
I like nice asses; a girl with two of them would be nicer than a girl with one.
the sandwich one is ok.
but the medieval one isn't, because there is only a strong gate. however, if you said:
The gate is strong; a castle made out of nothing but gates must be stronger
is a fallacy of composition - when you put it all together, it holds no water.
The reason why those examples are fallacies of composition is because they're each part of a whole. And the attribute of the part was illegitimately transferred to the whole.
If you can agree that a girl's ass is part of her, and you conclude that because her ass is beautiful, she must be beautiful, by definition you've committed the fallacy of composition.
The castle example follows the same format, but you first must accept that the gate is a part of the castle, and the castle, as a whole, includes the gate.
It's a rather obscure fallacy, and isn't as well known as say a red herring, straw man, or ad hominem.
i remember seeing few thing lately and getting annoyed because you can't deduce what the ppl on the screen do, but i get that a lot as a maths student. Maybe stuff like perry mason but they spell it out for you a bit much there. most sci fi/spy film has a load of it but then they just make stuff up so...
when he tricks the guards into thinking he's in a room by putting a torch on a moving fan so they see lights moving in a room and know he's in the building so assume he's in the room. kinda lame example
it follows that the whole has that attribute too and the situation is such that the attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole (Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 154).
But I think you've oversimplified it. Part of the definition of the fallacy is that it, the fallacy, is based on a ridiculous assumption.
Assuming that a girl with a nice ass must also be pretty is not a ridiculous assumption. Whether she is or isn't is besides the point. Sometimes it's true that such a girl can also be pretty, but sometimes ugly girls have nice asses.
On the other hand, assuming that chalk must be invisible simply because the atoms themselves are invisible is a ridiculous assumption because we know that 'chalk' is not invisible.
As another example, one can say that because both gorillas and whales are mammals, so a gorilla should be able to behave like a whale such as swim to the depths of the ocean or hold it's breath for an hour. We know that gorillas cannot do that but you can see how one can come to such a conclusion by linking their mammalian heritage.
A fallacy of composition is more complex than misjudging the parts for the whole. It involves a fundamentally flawed judgment such as thinking that anchovies and ice cream must be good.
oh I just watched that movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" and there is a part where they're at a gay party cause Adam Sandler wants to see Jessica Biel and he sees what looks like a chick waving her ass around but then the person turns around and its David Spade
On November 29 2007 05:54 gg_hertzz wrote: But I think you've oversimplified it. Part of the definition of the fallacy is that it, the fallacy, is based on a ridiculous assumption.
Assuming that a girl with a nice ass must also be pretty is not a ridiculous assumption. Whether she is or isn't is besides the point. Sometimes it's true that such a girl can also be pretty, but sometimes ugly girls have nice asses.
On the other hand, assuming that chalk must be invisible simply because the atoms themselves are invisible is a ridiculous assumption because we know that 'chalk' is not invisible.
As another example, one can say that because both gorillas and whales are mammals, so a gorilla should be able to behave like a whale such as swim to the depths of the ocean or hold it's breath for an hour. We know that gorillas cannot do that but you can see how one can come to such a conclusion by linking their mammalian heritage.
A fallacy of composition is more complex than misjudging the parts for the whole. It involves a fundamentally flawed judgment such as thinking that anchovies and ice cream must be good.
I'm don't think that a fallacy has to be based on a ridiculous assumption to be considered a fallacy. Ridiculous conclusions are often the product of fallacious reasoning, but I don't believe that a fallacy is always caused by a ridiculous assumption.
What I think you're on to is that the fallacy of composition does not always occur when attributes are transferred. It's only when they are improperly transferred.
For example: Every piece of that picket fence is white. Therefore, the picket fence is white.
The very reason why the picket fence is white is because all its parts are.
Another example along the lines of the original girl/ass: I see a man with well-developed quadriceps and biceps running a mile in 5:00. I conclude that he is athletic.
The reason why he is athletic is because of his well-developed body.
To return to that earlier example of a girl with a nice ass being beautiful: It doesn't necessarily mean that just because she has a nice ass she will be beautiful. I'm sure anyone would be able to think of many instances where he's seen a nice ass but the rest didn't follow. You're right in that it wouldn't be ridiculous to assume that because she has a nice ass she will be beautiful. But ridiculous is somewhat subjective.
I believe what it boils down to is an argument in probability. Fallacies deal exclusively with inductive logic, and inductive logic is based on probability. To assert that a woman is beautiful based on her having a nice ass would be classified as a weak inductive argument.
Your example of the gorillas and whales isn't fallacious, it's just an invalid deductive argument. Deductive logic being different from inductive logic.
Thanks for the vid link by the way, Honk. I just finished up a presentation on these, and that clip provided a nice combo of the suppressed evidence fallacy along with the fallacy of composition.
EPT
