Fallacies: Fallacy of division

44문장 0% 인도네시아어 번역 0명 참여 출처 : 칸아카데미
0 영상보기
영어 to
인도네시아어
2단 보기 1단 보기
번역 0%

Fallacies: Fallacy of division발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

(intro music) Hello, I'm Paul Henne, and I'm a philosophy graduate student at Duke University.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And in this video I'm gonna talk to you about an informal fallacy called the "fallacy of division."발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And I'm also going to discuss why it's wrong to conclude that water molecules are wet.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The fallacy of division is a defect in reasoning that arises when someone infers that what is true of something must also be true of that thing's parts.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, the fallacy is kind of like saying that because a university has some qualities, then all of that university's departments must also have those qualities.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And that's a fallacy because even if a university is good all around, it doesn't necessarily mean that the university has a good taxidermy program, for instance.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, sounds problematic, right? But let's represent the logical error more formally.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The reasoning is something like this.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Premise (1): Whole A has properties A, B, and C.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Premise (2): P is a part of A.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Conclusion: Therefore, P must have properties A, B, and C.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The argument seems attractive, but the style of argument will not always lead to true conclusions, for it might not be the case that the parts and the whole have the same qualities.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

You may now be able to see what's going wrong with this line of reasoning.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, let's look at a few examples.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Suppose that I have a car, and I made this argument about my car.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Premise (1): My car is red and it goes really fast.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Premise (2): The muffler is a part of my car.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Conclusion: Therefore, my car's muffler is red and goes really fast.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Okay, that was an easy one.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Of course no one would make this argument, or assume that I own a car, but it demonstrates where the style of argument fails.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Clearly the muffler doesn't have the same properties as the car.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, let's try another more familiar example.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Suppose that your friend made this argument: the computer is indestructible; the hard drive is a part of the computer; therefore, the hard drive is indestructible.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Now, suppose your friend's premises are true.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

The conclusion could still be false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Maybe your friend was making this argument in order to transfer the hard drive of the indestructible computer to a different computer.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, if would be unfortunate for her to find out that the hard drive is only indestructible when it's connected to the other components of the original computer.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, the hard drive itself isn't indestructible like the whole computer.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Your friend committed the fallacy of division.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

That is, to be precise, she hastily assumed that the hard drive, the part, is indestructible like the whole computer.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

So, we just learned about the fallacy of division, or the error in reasoning that comes about when a person infers that what is true of something must also be true of its parts.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It is important, however, to note that this fallacious reasoning doesn't always lead to a false conclusion.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

I, for instance, might argue the following.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Premise (1): The house in pink.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Premise (2): The front door is part of the house.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Conclusion: Therefore, the front door is also pink.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And in this case, my argument leads to a true conclusion.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

For I've, for whatever reason, painted every part of my house pink.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Simply because there's fallacious reasoning doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion will be false.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

It's interesting to note that this fallacy is also the converse of the fallacy of composition, which says that it's fallacious to infer that what is true of the parts of something is also true of the whole those parts compose.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

These fallacies are quite similar, so you might want to check out that video as well.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

Anyway, watch out for this fallacy.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

And remember that just because water is wet, doesn't mean that you can conclude that water molecules are wet too.발음듣기

다른 번역문 등록

칸아카데미 더보기더 보기

전체보기
Top