The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).
The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the “reasoning” would look something like this.
Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.
It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion.
I have never said that all blacks are less intelligent than all whites. Nor have I said that all blacks are criminals and that no whites are. I have said that most blacks are considerably less intelligent than most whites, and that blacks have a rate of violent crime that is over seven times the white rate. I have also said that these are significant differences, and impressive evidence of genetic differences.
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate.
I have said that because blacks are characterized by low intelligence everywhere they live, and crime in most places, the burden of proof is on those who maintain that stupidity and crime are not genetic characteristics for blacks. I repeat that assertion.
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of “reasoning” in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
It is clear that sort of “reasoning” is fallacious. For example: “Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong.”
It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).
Examples of Genetic Fallacy
“The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called ‘reform’ plan must be a facist program.”
I have never made anything approaching this kind of argument. It is made by those who claim that because the Pioneer Fund helped fund research done for The Bell Curve, The Bell Curve is false.
The genetic fallacy is the kind of argument presented by those who argue that because the Nazis believed in the importance of race, race has no significance.
Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:
A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.
This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together.
This is the kind of fallacy of those who argue that black crime and stupidity are caused by poverty. They ignore the fact that poor Jewish and Oriental immigrants to this country have low crime rates, and that they, or their children usually rise in income and status. They also ignore the fact that poor whites usually have lower crime rates than poor blacks.
You have no evidence that African immigrants have higher crime rates, yet even the census shows that Nigerian Americans are one of the most educated ethnic groups, you keep ignoring this.
You are still squawking that black skin makes one a dumb criminal. With no credible evidence and despite lots of counter evidence.
You sir are just suffering from confirmation bias…to protect your ignorant bigoted views.
A and B regularly occur together.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.
OR
Crime by Blacks regularly occur together.
Therefore Crime is caused by Blacks.
This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both Murder and Blacks. Such as being raised in poverty would increase any group of people to resort to crime.
Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the mere fact that an event is particularly vivid or dramatic does not make the event more likely to occur, especially in the face of significant statistical evidence.
I do not see how I could be blamed for this. I am not describing individual crimes by blacks and using those crimes as proof that blacks have high crime rates. I am posting crime rates based on entire different races.
On the other hand, those who dwell on George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin are guilty of this fallacy.
A large survey carried out by the Home Office in 2003 found that white men were more likely to admit to having broken the law in the past year than were blacks, Asians or people of mixed race.
Perhaps white men are more honest.
This is what the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the United States Department of Justice has to say about the relationship between white and black crime:
You’re going to get the same answer you’ve bene getting for 500+ posts; “Philippe Rushton says so.” That a thousand or more equally or more qualified psychologists and psychometrists say Rushton’s full of shit won’t be accepted as evidence.
So, again, evidence it’s genetic? “Professor Rushton” says so. Evidence “blacks” actually constitute a single race? Rushton says so. Evidence the world is primarily broken up into three races? Rushton says so. Why don’t we count North American natives? Rushton didn’t want to count them, so we pretend they don’t exist. Evidence these differences aren’t social? Rushton says so. Evidence they aren’t based on economically rational decisions? Rushton says so. It’s always the same answer.
The persistent pattern of black criminality is impressive evidence.
What evidence would you accept that blacks are more likely to have a genetic predisposition to crime than whites? I have told you what my null hypothesis is. It would consist of blacks behaving and performing as well as whites. What is your null hypothesis?
I really would like for you to answer that question. What would convince you that racial differences in average aptitude and behavior are primarily genetic?