Codification fallacy - a fallacious argument that arises due to a failure to consider how something might be correct. You can write a whole book on any single thing. You can qualify it till you've spent your whole life doing it. You will however, never ever fully explain that thing.A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole or even of every proper part of the whole.
This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.
The converse of the fallacy of composition is the fallacy of division.
Examples
Consider the argument, "This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken into their constituent parts without any of those parts being breakable.
Here are some other examples of the fallacy of composition:
Atoms are not visible to the naked eye.
Humans are made up of atoms.
Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye
You like the taste of ice cream.
You like the taste of scrambled eggs.
Therefore, you like the taste of scrambled eggs mixed with ice cream.
Discussions and Debates
There are also some examples from our forums where members have brought up the fallacy of composition.
Response by Alun in the thread, "If there is a god, why is there evil?"
Questions or comments?
Finally, if you have any questions about the fallacy of composition or wish to debate something about it, please make a post in our Philosophy Forums. Please also post any comments about this page or suggestions of ways to improve it in the feedback section of the forums.
A "thing" is caporeal. An explanation is incaporeal. You might say, "but look at this lexicon. it's real an voluminous." but that's just begging the legitimacy of the scribbles used to refer to an incorporeal meaning, in-whole and in-part. That there are scribbles used to lead you to understand the intended meaning does nothing to legitimize that intended meaning or claim physical form for it.
Since it mostly or completely impossible to fully explain every aspect of a real "thing" it's important not to make as much nonsense as possible of an intended meaning while engaging in communication. Any and all communication is simply a string of argumentum ad pupulum fallacy that may even yet be an argumentum ad populum fallacy by its total composition. And, any single word or even whole book about a word will always be an agnosia to everything else that wasn't quantified.
This is due to the undeniable separation between subjectivity and objectivity.
Person a: "but everyone has subjectivity, therefore subjectivity is objective."
Person b: "nope."
Person a: "then you must be angry because I made you lie."
Person b: "wrong again and on minimaly three whole counts but I'm not going to get into it."
The really frustrating thing about talking at all is that you're always lying. You're always in cognitive dissonance just to ask for a glass of water. This usually leads fledgling philosophers to get in the habit of making nonsense of anything that possibly could still make good sense.
Thusly, I call this cited logical failure, codification fallacy.
Example:
Sec, baby crying, saving by posting."This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken into their constituent parts without any of those parts being breakable.