Fallacy: Composition
The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn
about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact,
no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two
types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because
of the high degree of similarity).
The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons
from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a
conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group
(taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look
something like this.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that
individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee
that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.
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.
The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is
concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the
whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More
formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:
That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be
inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack)
certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those
properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are
both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.
It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to
the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is
justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning
is not fallacious. For example, if every part of the human body is made
of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that
the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a
structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one
concludes that the whole structure is made of brick.
[
Previous
|
Index
|
Next
]
Description of Composition
Examples of Composition