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.
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.
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.
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.
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>
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
EPT
