Composition and division

Woods, John; Walton, Douglas

doi:10.1007/bf02120673

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Modern logicians have developed formal part-whole logics, and several of these have been evaluated in Woods and Walton (1977) as showing promise to help in the analysis of the fallacies of composition and division. Even so, these fallacies may turn out to be partly informal or practical in nature, since arguments like those in cases 3 and 4 appear to depend on nonexplicit premises that somehow go wrong or are lacking in fallacious cases like 1 and 2.…”

Section: Lita Lundquist Cole Des Hautes Letudes Commerciales De Copenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Book reviews

Willard¹,

Krabbe²,

Govier³

et al. 1993

Argumentation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lita Lundquist Cole Des Hautes Letudes Commerciales De Copenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Book reviews

Willard¹,

Krabbe²,

Govier³

et al. 1993

Argumentation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…4-17) ;Fisher 2004;Johnson 2000;Woods 2013. The last mentioned work strikes me as being a novel departure from some of Woods's earlier work (such as Woods and Walton 1977a;1977b), although undoubtedly there is some continuity of evolution and development between the two. means of actions and attitudes analogous to those whereby a family deals with the hunger of some of its members.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Debts, Oligarchies, and Holisms: Deconstructing the Fallacy of Composition

Finocchiaro

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a critical appreciation of Govier's 2006 ISSA keynote address on the fallacy of composition, and of economists' writings on this fallacy in economics. I argue that the "fallacy of composition" is a problematical concept, because it does not denote a distinctive kind of argument but rather a plurality, and does not constitute a distinctive kind of error, but rather reduces to oversimplification in arguing from micro to macro. Finally, I propose further testing of this claim based on examples involving public vs. private debt in economics; oligarchic tendencies in politics, and the emergence of societal wholes in sociology. Résumé:Il s'agit d'une appréciation critique du discours de Govier lors du congrès d'ISSA en 2006 sur le sophisme de composition, et des écrits des économistes sur cette erreur en écon-omie. Je soutiens que le «sophisme de composition» est un concept problé-matique, car il ne désigne pas un type distinctif d'argument, mais plutôt une pluralité d'arguments, et ne constitue pas un type distinctif d'erreur, mais plutôt réduit les raisonnements du micro au macro à une simplification excessive. Enfin, je propose d'effectuer d'autres essais de cette affirmation en m'appuyant sur des exemples concernant la dette publique vs privée en économie; des tendances oligarchiques dans la politique et l'émer-gence d'ensembles sociétaux en sociologie.

show abstract

The Nature of the Hypostatic Union

Lamont

2006

Heythrop J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Composition and division

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Book reviews

Book reviews

Debts, Oligarchies, and Holisms: Deconstructing the Fallacy of Composition

The Nature of the Hypostatic Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About