If you can’t say it clearly, then you probably don’t understand it yourself.
John Searle
This is also known as the whole-to-part fallacy. This argument states that because the whole has a certain characteristic, the parts that make up the whole must also have the same characteristic. In other words, the fallacy of division claims that the whole is always the same as its parts. For example:
1. The Dodgers have an excellent team this year. Therefore, we can safely conclude that every player on the team is excellent.
2. Republicans are in favor of immigration reform. Mr. Thomas is a staunch Republican. Therefore, Mr. Thomas must be in favor of immigration reform.
3. Kay lives in the wealthy part of town. She must be wealthy.
4. Berkeley is a very liberal city. Stan lives in Berkeley. He must be an extremely liberal person.
5. The cake tastes very sweet. All of its ingredients must be sweet.
It is clear that the parts or ingredients of a whole do not necessarily have the same characteristics as the whole itself. When one commits the fallacy of division, one erroneously uses the characteristics of the whole to define or categorize its constituents. Such an argument strays far from clarity, making assumptions about the parts without critically investigating them or considering them individually.
This fallacy is the opposite of the fallacy of division. It is sometimes referred to as the part-to-whole fallacy. The fallacy of composition involves an assumption that the characteristics of the parts are identical to the characteristics of the whole. In other words, the whole is assumed to be composed of identical parts. For example:
1. The woman who rear-ended me was Asian. All Asians must be terrible drivers.
2. Some living creatures exhibit signs of consciousness. Therefore, all living creatures must be conscious.
3. The cake recipe calls for salt. It must be a salty-tasting cake.
4. The terrorists who attacked us were Muslim. Therefore, all Muslims are terrorists.
5. My server at Sal’s Diner was extremely inefficient. The service at Sal’s is terrible and I will never go back.
If one ingredient of a recipe has a certain taste, this does not entail that the final product will taste like the ingredient. Likewise, simply because a member of a group or class is a certain way, this does not necessarily mean that the entire group or class is the same. Members of religions, political parties, and ethnic groups are all extremely diverse. However, due to this fallacy, stereotypical ways of thinking are common. We must be aware of stereotypes and other fallacies of composition.
Vagueness is perhaps the most common element found in unclear communication. A word or phrase is vague if it is imprecise or lacks specific clarifying details. For example:
1. It is obvious that Mary is special.
In this example the word “special” is not clear. Mary might be special because she is someone’s lover, or because she is mentally challenged, or because she is entitled to some privilege. In any case, we cannot know because the statement is vague. Consider this example:
2. Person A: What do you do for a living?
Person B: I am an artist.
Here, we can see that the word “artist” is vague. Is the person a painter? A sculptor? A songwriter? A poet? Also, in this example we see another important aspect of vagueness. That is, people often offer vague responses in order to dodge questions. Consider these examples:
3. Judge: Where were you on the night of December fourteenth?
Defendant: I was out.
4. Veronica: How is your first semester going at UC Berkeley, George?
George: Oh, you know, it is what it is.
In both of these examples we see vague responses that are meant to dodge the question. In example 3 the defendant states that she was “out.” It is unclear as to what this specifically means. In the next example George replies by stating “. . . it is what it is.” This may appease Veronica; however, it is still a vague answer that does not reveal how George’s first semester is going.
We must be on the lookout for ambiguous and vague words and phrases as we read the newspaper, watch the evening news, and talk with our friends. Also, we need to try and avoid vagueness and ambiguity ourselves, despite that it is often the easiest type of communication. Speaking and writing with clarity and precision takes work, but it ultimately reveals rather than obscures the truth.
This fallacy occurs when one word or phrase is used in two different ways in an argument. Sometimes the fallacy of equivocation is called the double meaning fallacy. Equivocation always relies on an ambiguous word or phrase and draws its conclusion from this ambiguity. For example:
1. All men are created equal. Women are not men. Therefore, women are not created equal.
In this example we can see that “men” is used quite differently in the first and second sentences. In the first, “men” refers to all human beings. In the second, “men” refers to only males. This argument is clearly fallacious because it relies on two very different definitions of “men.”
Consider these examples:
2. Exercise is good for the heart. Johanna just broke up with her boyfriend and she said that she has a broken heart. She just needs to get some exercise.
3. Philosophers say that life is ultimately a mystery. My sister loves to curl up with a good mystery. She must truly enjoy life.
4. Everyone knows that they should do what is right. I have a right to smoke. Therefore, I should smoke.
In each of these examples we can see clearly that one word or phrase is used in two very different ways. We should always be aware of ambiguities and the use of double meanings. If an ambiguity or inconsistency is discovered in an argument, one should try and restate the argument in a clear manner, or one should dismiss it altogether.
An analogy is a comparison of one thing with something else for the purposes of explaining or persuading. The comparison might be of two people, events, places, or just about anything else. For example, one might say, “Seattle is like a cleaner version of San Francisco.” Here the comparison between two cities is clear and straightforward. However, some analogies are unclear, unhelpful, or downright nonsensical. These are called weak analogies. For example:
1. Renting a house, rather than buying, is like flushing your money down the toilet.
In reality, renting is not simply throwing away money as the argument suggests—even if it does not end in investment or ownership. Rather, renting is paying for the temporary use of property or a good. Many people use rented cars, houseboats, and movies among other things. Using something you’ve paid for is not the same as “flushing your money down the toilet.”
Here are two more examples of weak analogies:
2. Denying the existence of God is like refusing to believe that the sky is blue.
3. Recycling is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm.
In both of these examples, the analogies given are unclear and unhelpful. Furthermore, the two things compared in each argument have nothing in common. We must strive to avoid using faulty analogies, and we must always be on the lookout for weak comparisons.
This fallacy is found when a statement appears to be insightful and profound, but in reality it is unclear and incoherent. We hear supposedly wise and weighty proclamations quite regularly from New Age gurus, televangelists, and college professors. But many of these statements, on closer inspection, are so vague that they might as well be meaningless. For example:
1. Guru: Reality does not exist; we exist on the shore of a collective nightmare.
2. Professor: My philosophy is that the ALL becomes the ONE which is identical to the Self and to the Cosmos through which knowledge is attained.
At first glance these statements appear intellectually deep. However, they lack clarity and specificity. Furthermore, each can be interpreted in a variety of ways. This can lead to multiple contradictory views, which in turn cause confusion.
The philosopher Martin Heidegger was often accused of committing the fallacy of pseudo-profundity. For example, philosopher Paul Edwards believes that Heidegger’s philosophy is a perfect example of pseudo-profundity; or as Edwards puts it, “hideous gibberish.”1 Consider these excerpts of Heidegger’s work:
3. Is Being a mere word and its meaning a vapor, or does what is designated by the word ‘Being’ hold within it the historical destiny of the West?2
4. We are ourselves the entities to be analyzed. The Being of any such entity is in each case mine. These entities, in their Being, comport themselves towards their Being. As entities with such Being, they are delivered over to their own Being. Being is that which is an issue for every such entity.3
These statements from Heidegger may be insightful or profoundly meaningful, but there is no way of knowing without further information from his writings. In any case, we must make it our goal to speak with clarity and coherence rather than vagueness and imprecision. Furthermore, we must listen critically to the statements of others, looking for clearness before assuming their words are profound or true—even when the speaker is an authority figure.
1. Paul Edwards, “Heidegger’s Quest for Being.” In the Journal Philosophy, 1989. p. 468.
2. Martin Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics. Translated by Ralph Mannheim. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. p. 42.
3. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper Collins, 1962. p. 42.