The Fallacy of Composition reads as follows: If a part of a whole is deemed as true, then the whole must also be true. One example states, if a part of a larger whole cannot be broken, then the larger whole cannot be broken. However, even when smaller components of the whole are indeed unbreakable, it does not make the whole immune to breaks.
Now call me crazy, but I have yet to determine if there is a difference between the Fallacy of
Composition, and Association Fallacy.
While Wikipedia cites the Fallacy of Composition as something often confused with the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization,
there is an unspoken agreement that they are not one and the same. But
do I grasp that difference? Hmmm…When examining other fallacies, if you
will, I found the Fallacy of Composition to be terribly close in meaning
to the Association Fallacy. But, while one is constituted, or composed, of something, the other owns certain properties that are later assigned erroneously to anything that comes close it. Does that make sense?
The
Fallacy of Composition reads:
Premise: A are made of Bs
Premise: Bs are C
Conclusion: Therefore, As are C
Here is the example given for the Fallacy of Composition:
1. Humans (A) are made up of human cells (B).
2. Human cells (B) are invisible to the naked eye (C).
3. Therefore, humans (A) are invisible to the naked eye (C).
The
Association Fallacy reads as follows:
Premise: A is a B
Premise: A is also a C
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs
And the example for Association Fallacy goes this way:
1. John has black hair.
2. John is a con artist.
3. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists.
Of course, when thinking of Association Fallacies, I much prefer this other example from Sir Humphrey Appleby:
1. All dogs have four legs;
2. My cat has four legs.
3. Therefore, my cat is a dog.
