[R] Fallacy of Composition in Movies - Page 2

.dragoon

United States749 Posts

November 29 2007 02:15 GMT

#21

On November 28 2007 12:48 citrus wrote:
Guy sees girl from behind and notices that she has a nice ass. He concludes that she must be beautiful.
Thanks guys.

I know someone like that lol

She's got really nice shape to her legs and hip, high waist like a model, but her face's not cute.

gg_hertzz

2152 Posts

November 29 2007 05:19 GMT

#22

On November 29 2007 09:20 citrus wrote:

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.

Yes it does.

A fallacy of composition occurs when a conclusion is illogical, irrespective of what it's parts would lead one to believe. Discovering that the nice ass is attached to an ugly face is not a fallacy; it's just an instance of fact, or just an exception to our perconceived notions. If, however, you somehow come to the conclusion that only ugly girls have nice asses then that is a sort of fallacy of composition. Therefore, believing a nice ass to belong to a good looking girl isn't illogical; believing that only ugly girls have nice asses is.

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.

Those examples don't make sense. I think you're on the wrong line of thinking that is why you're not understanding what a fallacy is.

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.

Again, fallacies occur when a conclusion is derived from illogically assembling it's arguments BASED on what we know as proven facts. The girl with a nice ass argument is not illogical. Believing in invisible chalk is illogical(because we know that chalk isn't invisible) or that someone would like anchovies with ice cream(because we know that there is probably no one on earth who likes that combination). To further illustrate why the latter is a fallacy, pretend that instead of anchovies and ice cream the girl likes chocolate syrup and ice cream. She may or may not like them in combination, but it's no longer a fallacy because it's not illogical. We know that MANY people like to put chocolate syrup on their ice cream, just because this one person doesn't like them together, even though she likes them as separate ingredients, doesn't mean that it's a fallacy of composition.

The fallacies are, in part, made by the reader or the viewer that incorporates his or her knowledge of what is to be true.

Let's say you are a 2 year old boy and I'm your guardian. After witnessing, on several occasions, that pigeons shit on cars, you come to me and you tell me that pigeons were made to shit on people's cars. I, as the adult, realize that it's a fallacy based on my adult understanding of what the reality is.

Fallacy is the unintended disconnect between supporting arguments and the conclusion.

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.

That's precisely where you're wrong. It's not probability. If you look at all the examples of this fallacy on wikipedia, in addition to the ones that you quoted(NOT the ones that you came up with yourself), it is apparent that fallacies occur when the conclusion is something we know to be ALWAYS wrong. Invisible chalk is always wrong. Anchovies and ice cream(a weak example BTW) is always wrong, swimming gorillas is always wrong, etc.

Your example of the gorillas and whales isn't fallacious, it's just an invalid deductive argument. Deductive logic being different from inductive logic.

My example was exactly the same as the ice cream and anchovies.

And that's all I'll say on that. I don't think I have much else to add. I hope my explanation of what a fallacy of composition is was lucid in writing as it was in my head.

citrus

United States158 Posts

November 29 2007 07:03 GMT

#23

I don't want you to take this as a personal attack, but you're wrong on many of points that you addressed.

On November 29 2007 14:19 gg_hertzz wrote:

Show nested quote +

Broadly, yes, a fallacy of composition may have occurred when an illogical conclusion exists, but any other fallacy may have occurred. That's why with inductive arguments, the content must be examined to determine if a fallacy was committed and if so what kind.

I think you may be ignoring the reasoning that goes along with the "discovering that the nice ass is attached to an ugly face," because it's that reasoning--based on the premises--that we're analyzing. The facts of the matter are what lead us to examining the truth of the premises and the conclusion.

Here's a further explanation on when the same process takes place but the fallacy of composition is not committed.
It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion. For example, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealth than an individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a whole than does the class of poor people. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and the fallacy of Composition would not be committed. <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html>

Show nested quote +

Those examples don't make sense. I think you're on the wrong line of thinking that is why you're not understanding what a fallacy is.

I didn't cite my textbook on that first example as I should have, but if it makes it seem more credible, here you go:

Every component in this picket fence is white. Therefore, the whole fence is white. (Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 155)

Show nested quote +

To be clear: conclusions are formed with premises; conclusions will then support arguments or be arguments themselves.

Because we seem to have differing definitions of a fallacy, here's a definition, and I think it's pretty inline with what I've expressed so far:
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/>

Again, I don't know what to tell you about the ancho/choco sundae example. My textbook lists that as a fallacy of composition. And it makes sense given their definition of the fallacy of composition.

I'm not sure whether you meant to say is or isn't, so I bolded that.

And yes, you're right that the fallacy of composition wouldn't be committed if you substituted anchovies for chocolate syrup. But you've changed the premises. The explanation on when the fallacy of composition would not be committed that I provided above (linked to nizkor.org) should clear that up.

Let's say you are a 2 year old boy and I'm your guardian. After witnessing, on several occasions, that pigeons shit on cars, you come to me and you tell me that pigeons were made to shit on people's cars. I, as the adult, realize that it's a fallacy based on my adult understanding of what the reality is.

Agreed.

Show nested quote +

I don't think the definition of a fallacy on wikipedia supports the conclusion that a fallacy occurs only when the conclusion is always wrong. If you reached that conclusion just by taking a look at the examples, I'd suggest taking a look at examples from other websites. The anchovies and ice cream example is straight from my textbook, so I don't really know what to tell you there.

Do you mean a poor example or weak example? Weak is to inductive arguments as invalid is to deductive arguments.

I stand corrected also on my statement about fallacies. There are informal and formal fallacies. Formal fallacies deal with deductive logic and examine only the structure of the argument, and informal fallacies deal with inductive logic and the content of the argument must be examined.

Show nested quote +

Your example was a deductive argument following a form similar to this:

All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, all A are C.

And while the premises are sound, because you have an invalid structure, you have a false conclusion.

Anyway, if you have more to add, I'm willing to reply. This got a bit long-winded.

Edit: While inductive logic is known to deal with probability, I forgot to give a definition. Here's a simple wikipedia entry:

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it.

So in other words, the premises lead to the conclusion probably.

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

November 29 2007 07:24 GMT

#24

fallacies are not wrong propositions but bad arguments. granted the formal definition is not all taht precise anyway, but you get hte idea. the basic fallacy is non sequitur

inductive stuff resists deductive reduction, because of the peculiar quality of 'reasonableness' that is not found in deductive systems. you basically have to take it as it is. an inductive fallacy of composition might veyr well only be 'reasonably wrong,' but we say this with certainty based on the firm logical forms at work.

Prev 1 2 All

Please or register to reply.

[R] Fallacy of Composition in Movies - Page 2

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming