Chapter 12 of the Epstein text shows different examples on judging analogies. One of them is "Fallacy of Composition." Fallacy of Compostion means that something is done when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents even thnet ough there really is no reason provided for the inference. An example for fallacy of composition which I found on the net is...
Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
Humans are made up of human cells.
Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye.Just by looking at the argument, it seems like it would be valid because the conclusion "Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye" would be true based on the first premise "Human cells are invisible to the naked eye" since humans are made up of human cells, but in reality this argument would be false because we all know that humans are not invisible to the naked eye which makes the argument as a fallacy of composition.
I don't see how the example shapes the definitions of a fallacy of composition. Epstein's text states the "fallacy of composition is to argue that what is true of the individual is therefore true of the group, or that what is true of the group is therefore true of the individual." I don't find an analogy with the example that you set to define the fallacy of composition. I suggest you compare the invisibility of human cells to the naked eye, like for example, Human cells are invisible to the naked eye just as how the opinions of each and every person in a state is invisible to the government. This argument may seem valid, but it justifies the definition of the fallacy of composition.
ReplyDelete