Sweeping Generalization vs Composition
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I understand the difference between a Sweeping Generalization (aka Accident Fallacy) and a Hasty Generalization. I also understand the difference between the fallacies of Composition and Division, which are also inverse examples of each other.
But what's the difference between a Sweeping Generalization and a Fallacy of Composition? What about a Hasty Generalization and Fallacy of Division? They look the same to me.
Are Sweeping Generalization and Composition just two names for the same fallacy? And do Hasty Generalization and Division similarly describe the same fallacy?
Thanks.
Comments on Question
Answers
1This is the same question one of my schoolmates asked in our logic class. The examples you gave can explain the difference if they are analyzed in more detail.
Anteaters ARE mammals.
Mammals ARE MADE OUT OF atoms.
While anteaters are one type of mammal, atoms are what build mammals, they make up the whole mammal. Parts of a whole are not the same as a set of all individual cases of an object.
In Sweeping generalization and Hasty generalization it is a problem of inference about the whole species (whole species = all cases) on the basis of only some cases of a given species.
Fallacy of division and Fallacy of composition are about identifying a whole and its parts. The whole is not a simple sum of its parts. Sodium and chloride are toxic, but sodium chloride is not.
I hope I have clarified the difference. Read the definitions of these fallacies from this site, and if it is not clear to you again, ask what confuses you.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
P.S. Here are examples for each one:
Sweeping Generalization (“Accident”):
Most mammals have teeth.
Anteaters are mammals.
Therefore, anteaters have teeth.
Hasty Generalization:
Anteaters have no teeth.
Anteaters are mammals.
Therefore, no mammals have teeth.
Composition:
Mammals are made out of atoms.
Atoms are invisible.
Therefore, mammals are invisible.
Division:
Mammals are made out of atoms.
Mammals are visible.
Therefore, atoms are visible.
If my examples are accurate, then...well, I'm still confused. ;)