The fallacy of composition is the logical error of assuming that what is true for individual parts of something must also be true for the whole. It occurs when one infers that the properties of individual members or components apply to the entire group or system, without considering that the whole may have different or emergent properties that the parts do not possess.
Key Points about the Fallacy of Composition
- It assumes uniformity between parts and the whole, which is often incorrect because the whole can exhibit characteristics not present in the parts (emergent properties).
- This fallacy is common in inductive reasoning, where general principles are improperly inferred from specific observations.
- An example is assuming that because one brick is light, the entire building (composed of many bricks) must also be light, which is false.
- It contrasts with the fallacy of division, which assumes that what is true for the whole must also be true for the parts.
- Understanding this fallacy involves recognizing that interactions and scaling effects can change properties when parts form a whole.
Examples
- A single bird is quiet, but a flock of birds can be noisy. Assuming the flock is quiet because one bird is quiet is a fallacy of composition.
- Saying a vehicle is made of rubber just because it has rubber tires is fallacious.
- While a part may have a property (e.g., being metal), the whole composed of those parts could also be metal, which is not fallacious if the property legitimately translates to the whole.
In summary, the fallacy of composition is an informal logical fallacy that leads to unsound arguments by wrongly attributing part properties to wholes without justification.
