Is this a fallacy of Composition?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

If someone says that one piece of evidence is wrong, and then uses that to say the entire body of evidence is faulty, is that a fallacy of composition?

IT seems like it to me.

[Frank Hipper]

On the surface, textbook example, yes.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

thanks. I was debating with someone who said Piltdown man is an example of why evolution evidences are wrong.

[Frank Hipper]

thanks. I was debating with someone who said Piltdown man is an example of why evolution evidences are wrong.

While I'm stunned at how stupid that is, you should demand that he show that all evidence for evolution is a hoax like Piltdown in order to disprove that he's using a fallacious arguement, or to STFU.

(edit) Stunned at how stupid HE is, not you.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

THe forum gets worse there as you progressively read the posts.=D

[Guardsman Bass]

If someone says that one piece of evidence is wrong, and then uses that to say the entire body of evidence is faulty, is that a fallacy of composition?

IT seems like it to me.

It is. Look

Fallacies of composition

The Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of those items; or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a property of the whole thing. Examples:

"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very lightweight."

"A car uses less petrochemicals and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses."

A related form of fallacy of composition is the "just" fallacy, or fallacy of mediocrity. This is the fallacy that assumes that any given member of a set must be limited to the attributes that are held in common with all the other members of the set. Example:

"Humans are just animals, so we should not concern ourselves with justice; we should just obey the law of the jungle."

Here the fallacy is to reason that because we are animals, we can have only properties which animals have; that nothing can distinguish us as a special case.

[Darth Wong]

If someone says that one piece of evidence is wrong, and then uses that to say the entire body of evidence is faulty, is that a fallacy of composition?

IT seems like it to me.

Unless he can demonstrate that all of the evidence was collected in the same manner as that faulty piece of evidence, it's an obvious and blatant hasty generalization fallacy. I like to mock this type of argument: "I found one example of a scientist who lied in order to get famous and was caught by other scientists! Therefore, all scientists are liars and frauds and cheats and were conspiring with him ... except for the ones who exposed him ... and all of the others who documented it ... but the rest are ALL LIARS IN THE GIANT CONSPIRACY!!!"

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I know. I can't tell if he's being serious or if he's doing it just to aggrivate people.

[Darth Wong]

I know. I can't tell if he's being serious or if he's doing it just to aggrivate people.

If he's a fundie, he's serious. Most fundies honestly believe that all of the evolution evidence is faked. Otherwise they would have to deal with the fact that their precious literal Biblical creationism is bullshit.

[Darth Servo]

Where did this debate take place? On the net, over email, in person?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It's on the net at a forum. It's supposed to be a Liberal forum, but you have people there who aren't, and who I believe have the sole purpouse to cause trouble.

[Darth Servo]

It's on the net at a forum. It's supposed to be a Liberal forum, but you have people there who aren't, and who I believe have the sole purpouse to cause trouble.

Well then, by all means, provide a (broken) link so we may all get a good laugh from the stupidity.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

+http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum//i ... topic=9014

In this one, he's arguing that everyone's interpretation of balance of power and checks and balances is wrong, but his is right. The government is by the people aka the legislature, and the courts are thwarting it, overstepping their bounds by acting as activists.

THey are "goddless authoritarian judges."

+http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum//i ... ntry183098

This is basically one of the anti-science things that everyone keeps yelling at him in. Evolution = life from nothing etc.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

+http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum//i ... topic=9040

Oops. This one he's comparing Terry Schivo's treatment to polarbears.