|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Manhattan, New York City, |
|
|
|
Jean-Marc Gulliet: Paper for NYU's MindBodyMedia, Summer 2001
Big Fish and the Fallacy of Composition "Hi, Big Fish! How are you doing?" I said when I entered the cozy pub where my bionic extension and I usually met after a long day. "I’m good," he said with a warm smile. "How was your class with Doctor Keefer? You look… puzzled!" "Not bad," I replied, "but having read her lecture ‘MidSemester Lecture: Home Sweet Home,’ I am not at all sure that I agree with." "Yea, you…" said Big Fish with a glimpse of teasing in his eyes, "Do you mean that every single point she wrote is wrong?" "Not at all," I said. "Stop kidding! The matter is serious and I am sure that you will be able to shred some light on this difficult subject." "Okay. Let’s talk seriously my friend," he replied with a grave and not so serious face. "What is the major point that struck you in this reading?" I said: "Well, there is a paragraph about logical fallacies and medical experimentation. First, I do not think that I have understood what exactly is a logical fallacy. Second, for having studied applied mathematics and statistics, I don’t see the relationship she makes between logical fallacy and the conclusion drawn from medical experiments about Viagra." "Okay. Let me see the lecture if you have it with you," he said. I gave him a copy of Keefer’s "MidSemester Lecture: Home Sweet Home." Having read it in seconds — ultra-super-fast reading is one of the many advantages that Big Fish holds as a bionic extension — he sipped some beer, a sign of intensive rumination. Finally, he said, "I see where your problem is. First things first, we are going to examine what fallacy of composition is about. Roger A. Arnold defines fallacy of composition as ‘the erroneous view that what is good or true for the individual is necessarily good or true for the group.’ For example, let us say that you are at the movie theater. The room is crowded and you can see only half of the screen because of the tall and large football players sitting just in front of you. So, you decide to stand up and now on you can see entirely the screen" (17). "Cool!" I thought while I was smiling at the mental picture of the scene I had portrayed in my mind. "Now, think about that," he said. "Do you believe that your solution is worth to be done by many people in the theater? I mean by that what would happen if every body stood up in the room?" "I guess" I started to reply, "that… Okay! I have the point: if every body stands up, the situation would be the same as when every body sat. In both case, I would not see the screen. Therefore, in a specific context, what is good for one is not necessarily good for many. Put another way, we cannot generalize from one specific situation." "You’re damn right!" he said, "I am proud of you. Now, let us examine the second point that is obscure for you, that is the relationship between fallacy of composition and medical experimentation. Actually, I think that your confusion come from the fact that Doctor Keefer hasn’t made a clear distinction between who is who and who does what…" "I beg your pardon," I interrupted. "I mean by that," he went on, "that in a huge company such as Pfizer you must distinguish the researcher from the marketing guys. I mean, who do you think that will be more incline to make, or to use, an overgeneralization, that is a fallacy of composition?" "Let me see… I would like to say the Marketing guys," I replied with the largest smile I could do while I was sipping my beer. "You’ve got it!" he said. "The aims of these peoples are different: finding for the ones and selling for the others, even though, if sometimes the border between the two groups disappears and researchers try to boost their career or to make money. Nevertheless, experiments must be conducted according to a strict set of standards and procedures if one want to publish one’s conclusions" (Myers, 18-45). I said, "Okay! Now, I understand why some scientific associations, such as the American Psychological Association, publish standards. For example, I did a research paper for an introductory class in psychology and, of course, I had to follow the APA style. My paper was subdivided in several sections such as literature review, method, results, and discussion. With all these information and distinctions, someone else can reproduce my experiment to assess if my finding is acceptable or not." "Exactly," said Big Fish. "Moreover, the background and operational conditions allow scientific magazines to proceeded to a peer review before publication. That is some other scientists specialized in the same field will examine the report and deem if it is, let’s say, serious or not, whatever the conclusion is." "Well," I said, "now everything is clear. Believe me, I know what I am talking about." "Wow! I think you must read Keefer’s lecture ‘Traditional versus Cyber-Argumentation.’ It would help you," he replied with a large smile before we left the pub, heading home for a good night of sleep. Works Cited Arnold, Roger A. Economics. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Coll., 1998. Brace, Nicola, Richard Kemp, and Rosemary Snelgar. SPSS for Psychologists a Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows (Versions 8, 9, and 10). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2000. Keefer, Julia. "MidSemester Lecture: Home Sweet Home." 30 May 2001 <http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/com/lecture1.html> ---. "Traditional versus Cyber-Argumentation." 31 May 2001 <http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/brain/argue.html> Myers, David G. Psychology. 6th ed. New York: Worth, 2001. Newport, Frank, Lydia Saad, and David Moore. "How Polls are Conducted." Where America Stands. Wiley, 1997. Gallup Organization. 30 May 2001 <http://www.gallup.com/poll/faq/faq000101.asp> |
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [Curriculum Vitae] [Photo Galeries] [Papers] [Frankenstein] [Fallacy] [Kurzweil] [Spielberg’s A.I.] [Erich Fromm] [Collage] [Orwell] [Agent Based Modelling] [Mathematics] [Computer Science] [XML] |
|
|
Copyright © 2000-2004 Jean-Marc Gulliet. All Rights Reserved. |
|