Editing Fallacy of division

{{About|reasoning that draws a conclusion by parting an inseparably unified total|reasoning that draws a conclusion by parting a separable total|deductive reasoning}}
{{short description|Fallacy}}

The '''fallacy of division'''<ref name= Division>{{cite web |title= Division
|url= https://fallacyfiles.org/division.html|access-date =2024-05-10}}</ref> is an [[informal fallacy]] that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.

An example:

# The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream
# Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary
# Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream

The converse of this [[fallacy]] is called [[fallacy of composition]], which arises when one fallaciously attributes a property of some part of a thing to the thing as a whole.

If a system as a whole has some property that none of its constituents has (or perhaps, it has it but not as a ''result'' of some constituents having that property), this is sometimes called an ''[[Emergence|emergent]]'' property of the system.

The term ''mereological fallacy'' refers to approximately the same incorrect inference that properties of a whole are also properties of its parts.<ref>M. R. Bennett; P. M. S. Hacker. 2003. ''Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience''. [http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/contents_PhiloFndtns_Neurosci.pdf Table of contents].</ref><ref>Rom Harré. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/behind-the-mereological-fallacy1/44615986E9F6FF6BD30A354FA22E58D3 Behind the Mereological Fallacy]. ''Philosophy'' 87:3, July 2012, pp. 329-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819112000241</ref><ref>P.M.S. Hacker. 2013. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/before-the-mereological-fallacy-a-rejoinder-to-rom-harre/BA5F9C392BEE94903F7BAC00686B1F91 Before the Mereological Fallacy: A Rejoinder to Rom Harré]. ''Philosophy'', 88(1), 141-148. doi:10.1017/S003181911200054X</ref><ref> H. Van Eyghen. 2023. [https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/92231841/Brain_perceives_infers.pdf The Brain Perceives. The Brain infers]. ''Wittgenstein and the Cognitive Science of Religion'', 53-72. doi:10.5040/9781350329386.0011</ref>

== History ==
Both the fallacy of division and the [[fallacy of composition]] were addressed by [[Aristotle]] in ''[[Sophistical Refutations]]''.

In the philosophy of the ancient Greek [[Anaxagoras]], as claimed by the Roman [[atomist]] [[Lucretius]],<ref>{{cite book|title=Intellectual Property Protection of Fact-based Works: Copyright and Its Alternatives|page=110|first=Robert|last=Brauneis|publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing|year=2009}}</ref> it was assumed that the atoms constituting a substance must themselves have the salient observed properties of that substance: so atoms of water would be wet, atoms of iron would be hard, atoms of wool would be soft, etc. This doctrine is called ''[[homoeomeria (philosophy)|homoeomeria]]'', and it depends on the fallacy of division.

==Examples in statistics==

In [[statistics]], an [[ecological fallacy]] is a logical fallacy in the interpretation of statistical data where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong. The four common statistical ecological fallacies are: confusion between ecological correlations and individual correlations, confusion between group average and total average, [[Simpson's paradox]], and other statistical methods.<ref>{{cite book|title=Logic: A Modern Introduction to Deductive Reasoning|url=https://archive.org/details/logicmodernintro0000terr|url-access=registration|pages=[https://archive.org/details/logicmodernintro0000terr/page/160 160–163]|first=Dailey|last=Burnham Terrell|year=1967|publisher=Holt, Rinehart and Winston}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Ecological fallacy]]
* [[Fallacy of composition]]
* [[Synecdoche]], the figure of speech of two forms: 
** ''[[Pars pro toto]]'' using the word for a part by way of referring to the whole
** ''[[Totum pro parte]]'' using the word for the whole by way of referring to a part

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{cite book|title=Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN IV: International Conference on Evolutionary Computation. The 4th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature Berlin, Germany, September 22–26, 1996. Proceedings, Volume 114|pages=170–173|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|author1=Werner Ebeling|author2=Hans-Michael Voigt}}
*{{cite book|title=Social Work Research and Evaluation: Foundations of Evidence-Based Practice|pages=393–394|author1=Richard M. Grinnell|author2=Jr., Yvonne A. Unrau|publisher=Oxford University Press}}

==External links==
{{Spoken Wikipedia|Fallacy_of_division.ogg|date=2020-9-5}}
*{{cite web|url=https://fallacyfiles.org/division.html|title=Division|publisher=The Fallacy Files}}

{{Fallacies}}

[[Category:Verbal fallacies|Division]]
[[Category:Relevance fallacies]]


{{logic-stub}}