Talk:Fallacy of composition

message: I am not familiar with the "paradox of thrift".  But as described, it sounds to me like this is an exmple of prisoner's dilema.  What is the relationship between falacy of composition and the prisoner's dilema?
All of the Austrian stuff is redundant, and a distraction from the topic. It's already well-qualified by qualifying the economics as being 'Keynesian'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.119.132 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic

message: The article contains a statement that is easily proven wrong. It says: "Relative properties are never expansive. E.g., it does not follow that if all parts of a chair are cheap, then the chair is cheap." An example that proves this wrong is "If all parts of a chair are cold to the touch, the chair is cold to the touch." Other examples are "soft", "fragile" and "poor quality". -- I'm not editing the article because the statement seems to be based on formal theory, so it should probably be adjusted to better reflect this theory, by someone who knows the theory. --Kafpauzo (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative properties can be expansive 

message: I know what 'Fallacy of Composition' means. It means that something that is true for an individual may not be necessarily be true for everybody as a whole. For example if I wrote a white X on my locker door, I have the advantage of quickly locating my locker in a large locker room, unless EVERYBODY wrote a white X on their locker. Or if I took a quite side road to bypass heavy rush-hour traffic; I would get to work sooner, unless EVERYBODY took that side road.
To me the article is much too scientific in explaining what Fallacy Of Composition means. For example, the part about 'humans are not visible to the naked eye' is highly unhelpful for someone who just wants an explanation on what it means. Any thought? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't the article be less scientific and more in layman's terms what it means? 

message: Hey there 7&6=thirteen, it seems there's an issue that has arisen regarding the Exceptions section the to Fallacy of Composition article.  I would like it to be resolved in the best way possible, so I've come here to discuss it with you :).  First, I'll explain what I believe that the dispute is, and then I'll propose a solution.  If you disagree with what I believe the issue is in the first place, or have an alternative outcome, or anything else, I'm all ears.
The dispute is whether or not the Fallacy of Composition article should have an Exceptions section.  Now, it may be the case that the dispute is about going around willy-nilly and deleting sections without modifying them first, but this distinction is irrelevant in this particular instance with regards to my proposed solution and its reasons.
My solution is simple: the Exceptions section is deleted.
My reasons for this are as follows:  There are no exceptions to a fallacy.  Even if one can construct an argument whose premises are true, and whose conclusions are true, that does not mean that there is suddenly an "exception" to its reasoning being a fallacy.
Here is an example in the Exceptions section of an "exception" to the fallacy:
"Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will, too. In such instances, the fallacy of composition does not apply. For example, if all parts of a chair are green, then it is usually acceptable to infer that the chair is green."
As you can see, this is irrelevant. Here is their argument recast:
"Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will, too. In such instances, the fallacy of composition does not apply. For example, if all parts of a human (their cells) are invisible, then it is usually acceptable to infer that the human is invisible."
Obviously it is not the case that it is usually acceptable to infer that a human is invisible (unless he/she is behind a wall or too far away).
Second: No other fallacy page has a section for exceptions (and for good reason; there's no such thing).  For consistency's sake it would make sense that this one doesn't either (or that they ALL do).
Third: There was already apprehension to the section being added in the first place, and good reasons for its not being added.  You can see this in the article's talk page.
I await your response :) - Nicklink483 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Been more or less out of touch the past few days.  I think the article is better with point and counterpoint. Surely you have a point. But eliminating a viewpoint, even if it is wrong, is IMHO wrong. That being said, I have neither the energy nor the interest to right (or "write") every wrong edit in Wikipedia.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Been more or less out of touch the past few days." That's objectively false. "But eliminating a viewpoint, even if it is wrong, is IMHO wrong."  So would you want me to go through each Fallacy page and add an explanation on how fallacies can be purple (with references)?  Would you be against someone else 'eliminating' that viewpoint?  "I think the article is better with point and counterpoint."  It's nice that you have an aesthetic preference to the structure of this article, but this isn't the sort of thing that's controversial.  Certainly we wouldn't see a 'counterpoint' to a page all about 2 plus 2 equaling 4.  Furthermore, even if your preference for a counterpoint were valid aesthetically, it's still the only Fallacy page with any such counterpoint, so other's aesthetic preferences for consistency weakens that point.  - Nicklink483 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacy of Composition#Exceptions 

message: Under "Examples", the article gave the following:
:An important example from economics is the Paradox of thrift: if one household saves money, it can consume more in the future. Therefore if all households save money, they can all consume more in the future.
The Paradox of Thrift is not an example of a Fallacy of Composition but the answer to one.  The fallacy lies in the syllogism given, but the syllogism isn't the Paradox of Thrift:  it's what the Paradox of Thrift proves to be fallacious.  
I have therefore rewritten that example as best I could.  Somebody with a better understanding of either logic or economics may be able to improve on my effort.
Jdcrutch (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradox of Thrift Not an Example 

message: The illustration seems to be trying to conflate "describable form" with the more nebulous term "meaning", seemingly as nothing more then a booster for atheism and the selling point of the cited book. Further, it seems to be self-contradicting, as it implies that the proper statement would be that "matter, motion and meaning are all that comprise man" and that the original premise could indeed be inferred as false.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.135.121.159 (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent "modo hoc" example? 

message: Man comprises this and that is correct. Or this and that compose man. But not this and that comprise man. Accepted grammatical usage. Hermanoere (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprise vs. Compose in the "modo hoc" section 

message: "This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn"
I don't understand the distinction made in the quote above. Are they two different things? Is one an example of the other? Surely a hasty generalisation is an example of a fallacy of composition? Can somebody please make this distinction clearer. Two examples which are each an example of one but not the other would held. And if there is one, an example which is both too. Thanks you.
Vapourmile (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it helps, in the template, one is in the section "Illicit transference" with the other under "Faulty generalization".  I agree that they appear very similar as currently described in their lead.  To really understand the difference I'd have to dig in some sources myself.  —PaleoNeonate – 13:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacy of hasty generalization 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tail wagging the dog. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tail wagging the dog" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Example of fallacy of composition 222.127.49.206 (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy