Talk:Fallacy of division

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

"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

?

The example 'Functioning brains think' is itself the conclusion of a fallacy of division! It is primarily human beings, with a functioning brain, who think. But it does not follow from this that functioning brains think. The example must be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircion (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe that Fallacy of division (and fallacy of composition) is actually a formal fallacy, yet it is listed as informal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy . In this fallacy, the premises are true, but the conclusion is not. Reference: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/critical-thinking/v/formal-informal-fallacy StojadinovicP (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Partially repeating what is said in "Apples and pips": The definition and example does not fit well. One claim of the definition is that it is fallacious to reason that what is true for the whole must be true for at least some of the parts. However, in the example that would not be a fallacy, because some of Carlos' classmates must eat a lot of ice cream. I think an example of emergent behaviour is needed to fully explain the fallacy.