Talk:Fallacy of division
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
"One might also reason that, because the apple is not poisonous none of its constituents are. Again one would be committing the fallacy of division. Apple pips contain a form of cyanide."
Might one not safely reason, however, that none of the constituents of an apple that one actually EATS is poisonous?!
No. When I swallow a few apple seeds, it's harmless -- the amount of cyanide is so tiny that its effect is not noticable. But cyanide is, of course, poisonous in larger quantities. -- DavidCary 16:29, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"A fallacy of division occurs when someone reasons logically that something that is true of a thing must also be true of its constituents."
Are there different names for
- the fallacy of assuming something is true for *all* of its constituents
- the fallacy of assuming something is true for *at least one* of its constituents
?
