On Jul 28, 12:55 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jul 28, 6:47 am, chazwin
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jul 28, 10:19 am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>> On Jul 27, 7:24 pm, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:>
>>>> On Jul 28, 5:47 am, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:>
>>>>> ZerkonX
X.net> wrote innews:pan.2008.07.27.15.00.02@X.net:>
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:15:49 -0500, Publius wrote:
>
>>>>>>> the Organic Fallacy,
>
>>>>>> could you explain this term a little? I can not find a good definition
>>>>>> for this.
>
>>>>> The Organic Fallacy is a fallacy often encountered in social and political
>>>>> commentary which involves imputing to societies or other collections of
>>>>> people properties which are only defined for or determinable for the people
>>>>> individually. It is a species of the Fallacy of Composition, which involves
>>>>> an invalid inference regarding a whole from propositions about some or all
>>>>> of its parts.
>
>>>> Not a fallacy at all. There is a group entity, as well the individual,
>>>> the interaction of which, exists and is dynamic.
>
>>> Quite right. What we have here is a 'fallacy fallacy', which is an
>>> example of propaganda or political speech.
>
>> What we have here is a fallacy fallacy fallacy. The fallacy of
>> composition which holds that the parts are equal to the whole is what
>> they call in the North of England "pidgeon holing". Not all of them do
>> it , not all of theme recognise its importance, but the quality by
>> which everyone is "tarred with the same brush" is the basis of racism
>> and prejudice. I fyou wnat a good example of it there is some jerk off
>> on another thread declaring that blacks should live in Africa, Jews in
>> Israel, Whites in Europe etc..
>> Europe is a white country has the same truth value as Utah is a Moron
>> state. It is sloppy and dangerous.
>
> Way off Chaz, you are talking about over-generalization.
>
> Fallacy Of Composition is exemplified by the statement that since
> trees are tall and narrow, a forest is tall and narrow. What is
> important to the topic *first* is whether it is justifiable to apply
> the same metric to the whole as to the elements. Indeed, we can
> measure the breadth and height of a forest, so that condition is met.
>
> To elaborate on my previous post: Let's say that we observe that
> Japanese citizens save 20%% of their income, while USA citizens save
> zero. Can we apply the same metric to the Nation-States of Japan and
> USA? Sure; governments spend money or save it just like individuals
> do. Is it reasonable to predict, from the habits of the citizens,
> that Japan is less profligate in spending than the USA? Perhaps,
> perhaps not, depending on various factors. So it *is* a fallacy to
> assume that Japan is frugal, but it is *not* a fallacy to suggest
> that a nation-state *may be* frugal.
>
> -tg
You are talking gibberish. Full of the objective assumptions of the
generalist: a failure of nuance and a lack of the wider picture.
Today we learn from BBC news that there is "GOOD NEWS" in the housing
market because the current slump will last only till 2010 when it will
be expected to rise a further 25%% in two years. But for everyone one
hoping to buy their first home that its tragic news, houses are
ridiculously high and many prospective home owners gladly welcomed the
slump, the news that it is temporary means misery for millions of
young couples.
So is the News good or bad? Is the housing market in a positive state
or a negative state. It all depends. That is why such bland
caricatures that you are foisting on us are a fallacy, and such things
are designed by vested interests to tell a particular story.
>
>
>
>>> When we attribute characteristics to an entity which are similar to
>>> those we attribute to individual humans, it would properly be called
>>> anthropomorphizing. But even this is not inherently a fallacy, For
>>> example, nation-state might be characterized as aggressive or peace-
>>> loving, or generous or stingy, relative to other nation-states, based
>>> on observable behaviors.
>
>>> The Organic Fallacy Fallacy is an example of the propagandists art, in
>>> which an attempt is made to support a narrow political point by
>>> claiming that it has a basis in logic and reason. (Something like
>>> 'Creation Science'.) A groups of individuals may or may not properly
>>> be said to behave as if an individual, depending on the data, but
>>> there is no *fallacy* in that attribution.
>
>>> -tg
>
>>>> The herd is made up of individuals and only can perform as a herd with
>>>> subconscious co operation of those individuals. One of many examples
>>>> would be 'the market'.
>
>
>>>>> The Organic Fallacy is a type of what Gilbert Ryle called a "category
>>>>> mistake" --- for example, assuming a parade belongs to the same
>>>>> onotological category as the marchers in the parade, and then imputing
>>>>> properties to the parade that can apply only to the marchers (or vice-
>>>>> versa). E.g., observing that the parade is 8 blocks long, and concluding
>>>>> that some or all of the marchers are 8 blocks long, or observing that some
>>>>> or all of the marchers are teenagers, and concluding that the parade is a
>>>>> teenager.
>
>>>> No mistake, just limited description.
>
>>>>> The Organic Fallacy transforms some collection of persons into a kind of
>>>>> superperson, or "uberperson," i.e., it misconstrues a collection of
>>>>> organisms as being itself some sort of larger organism.
>
>>>> That could be used to describe your own physical body. Separate
>>>> entities all acting 'in sync'.
>
>>>>> Then various
>>>>> properties of persons are imputed to this uberperson. Often the uberperson,
>>>>> e.g., a society, is conceived to be morally or ontologically superior to
>>>>> the lesser persons who comprise it; that it has interests and goals which
>>>>> override or transcend those of its constituent persons, who are then
>>>>> presumed to owe obeisance, fealty, piety, or other varities of deference or
>>>>> subservience to the uberperson.
>
>>>> Depends on how far the individual consciousness has developed. The
>>>> pope needs catholics. The 'I" has no such needs.
>
>>>>> Many properties of persons can be imputed to collectives metaphorically, of
>>>>> course, without committing the fallacy. For example, when someone states
>>>>> that "Utah is a Mormon state," or, "New York loves the Met," everyone will
>>>>> realize that states do not attend church, and that cities do not attend
>>>>> operas, i.e., that "Utah is a Mormon state" just means, "Many people in
>>>>> Utah are Mormons." It is a statement about some of the people in Utah, not
>>>>> the state of Utah (a proposition about the state itself might be, "Utah has
>>>>> a population of 2.6 million").
>
>>>> You identify a part of a land mass, and then 'color' it.
>
>>>>> The Organic Fallacy can always be resolved by demanding that propositions
>>>>> which impute various properties of persons to collections be translated
>>>>> into propositions about the actual persons making up the collection, whose
>>>>> truth can then be evaluated by examination of the persons thus specified.
>
>>>> A wilder beest vs wilderbeest.
>
>>>> Indiginous populations, Aus and US, specifically, didnt refer to 'a'
>>>> buffalo or 'a' kangaroo' but buffalo ang kangaroo spirit.
>
>>>> BOfL
