Re: City of Beijing announces Job Gaurantee

["John O'Donnell" <jackodonnell@xxxxxxx>]

None of my argument depend on imputing characteristics of a
part to the whole beyond simply concluding that the whole is
the sum of its parts and even that conclusion, while
obviously true, is superfluous to my argument. Please note
the [emphasis added] phrases below.

I ask again - Can you provide some specifics of the pitfalls
you see?

From:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

		Fallacy: Composition



	    Description of Composition

The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is
drawn about a whole based on the features of its
constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for
the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy,
both of which are known by the same name (because of the
high degree of similarity).

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a
person reasons from the characteristics of individual
members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the
characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a
whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something
like this.

 1.Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
 2.Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has
characteristics A, B, C, etc.

This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact
that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in
itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has
those characteristics.

It is important to note that drawing an inference about the
characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of
its individual members [emphasis added] IS NOT ALWAYS
FALLACIOUS. In some cases, sufficient justification can be
provided to warrant the conclusion. For example, it is true
that an individual rich person has more wealth than an
individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it
is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as
a whole than does the class of poor people. In this case,
the evidence used would warrant the inference and the
fallacy of Composition would not be committed.

The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when
it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole
must be true of the whole without there being adequate
justification for the claim. More formally, the line of
"reasoning" would be as follows:

 1.The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C,
etc.
 2.Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot
be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole
have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they
are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear
in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts
of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.

It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the
parts to the properties of the whole [emphasis added] IS NOT
ALWAYS FALLACIOUS. If there is justification for the
inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not
fallacious. For example, [emphasis added] IF EVERY PART OF
THE HUMAN IS MADE OF MATTER, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE AN ERROR
IN REASONING TO CONCLUDE THAT THE WHOLE HUMAN BODY IS MADE
OF MATTER. Similarly, if every part of a structure is made
of brick, there is no fallacy committed when one concludes
that the whole structure is made of brick.

Examples of Composition

 1.A main battle tank uses more fuel than a car. Therefore,
the main battle tanks use up more of the available fuel in
the world than do all the cars.

 2.A tiger eats more food than a human being. Therefore,
tigers, as a group, eat more food than do all the humans on
the earth.

 3.Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are
colorless.

 4."Every player on the team is a superstar and a great
player, so the team is a great team." This is fallacious
since the superstars might not be able to play together very
well and hence they could be a lousy team.

 5."Each part of the show, from the special effects to the
acting is a masterpiece. So, the whole show is a
masterpiece." This is fallacious since a show could have
great acting, great special effects and such, yet still fail
to "come together" to make a masterpiece.

 6."Come on, you like beef, potatoes, and green beans, so
you will like this beef, potato, and green been casserole."
This is fallacious for the same reason that the following is
fallacious: "You like eggs, ice cream, pizza, cake, fish,
jello, chicken, taco sauce, soda, oranges, milk, egg rolls,
and yogurt so you must like this yummy dish made out of all
of them."

 7.Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans.
Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be
dangerous to humans.


Bruce McFarling wrote:
>
> At 23:20 04/04/02 -0800, John O'Donnell wrote:
> >Can you provide some specifics of the pitfalls you see? The
> >fallacy of composition you seem to be asserting is one of
> >improperly imputing the whole will have the same composition
> >as a partial sample of the parts. I make no such assertion.
>
> No, the fallacy of assuming that the whole will act as
> nothing other than a composition of the parts.  THAT is
> the critical fallacy of composition that undermines the
> conventional economic modelling that you are pursuing.
>
> The response in the conventional "microeconomic model
> masquarading as macroeconomic model" reasoning that you
> are pursing is to go from partial equilibrium to general
> equilibrium modelling.  The response of Keynes, Kalecki,
> and others was to shift modelling strategy from the
> representative firm to directly modelling the system as
> a whole.
>
> Virtually,
>
> Bruce McFarling, New Lambton, NSW
> ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--
			-- jbod

		Tax Privilege, Not People
___________________________________________________
Come visit and see a new economic perspective --
       http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1067
           Comments/arguments welcome.
.