Fallacy of division

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
For example:
 
For example:
  
1.  A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.
+
# A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.
2.  A Boeing 747 has jet engines.
+
# A Boeing 747 has jet engines.
3.  Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.
+
# Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.
  
 
A boeing 747 has the ability to fly unaided because of the systems is contains allowing it to do so. Although the 747 can fly unaided, the engine does not contain the system that the 747 as a whole contains, and so it cannot fly unaided.
 
A boeing 747 has the ability to fly unaided because of the systems is contains allowing it to do so. Although the 747 can fly unaided, the engine does not contain the system that the 747 as a whole contains, and so it cannot fly unaided.
Line 11: Line 11:
 
Example two:
 
Example two:
  
1.  Functioning brains think.
+
# Functioning brains think.
2.  Functioning brains are nothing but the neurons that they are composed of.
+
# Functioning brains are nothing but the neurons that they are composed of.
3.  If functioning brains think, then the individual neurons in them think.
+
# If functioning brains think, then the individual neurons in them think.
4.  Individual neurons do not think.
+
# Individual neurons do not think.
5.  Functioning brains do not think. (From 3 & 4)
+
# Functioning brains do not think. (From 3 & 4)
6.  Functioning brains think and functioning brains do not think. (From 1 & 5)
+
# Functioning brains think and functioning brains do not think. (From 1 & 5)
  
 
The opposite of the fallacy of division is the [[fallacy of composition]], which occurs when one fallaciously attributes a property of a part to the sum of the parts as a whole. You can see both the fallacy of division (premise 3) and the fallacy of composition (premise's 4 & 5) in the second example.
 
The opposite of the fallacy of division is the [[fallacy of composition]], which occurs when one fallaciously attributes a property of a part to the sum of the parts as a whole. You can see both the fallacy of division (premise 3) and the fallacy of composition (premise's 4 & 5) in the second example.
  
 
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]
 
[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Revision as of 20:48, 16 July 2010

A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that if a property is true of something, it must be true of all of its parts.

For example:

  1. A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.
  2. A Boeing 747 has jet engines.
  3. Therefore, one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean.

A boeing 747 has the ability to fly unaided because of the systems is contains allowing it to do so. Although the 747 can fly unaided, the engine does not contain the system that the 747 as a whole contains, and so it cannot fly unaided.

Example two:

  1. Functioning brains think.
  2. Functioning brains are nothing but the neurons that they are composed of.
  3. If functioning brains think, then the individual neurons in them think.
  4. Individual neurons do not think.
  5. Functioning brains do not think. (From 3 & 4)
  6. Functioning brains think and functioning brains do not think. (From 1 & 5)

The opposite of the fallacy of division is the fallacy of composition, which occurs when one fallaciously attributes a property of a part to the sum of the parts as a whole. You can see both the fallacy of division (premise 3) and the fallacy of composition (premise's 4 & 5) in the second example.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox