Logical Fallacy of Composition / Exception Fallacy

The exception fallacy is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. This is a fallacy that superimposes another level of fallacy on top or one or more of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma.

The logical fallacy of composition occurs when a person reasons that the properties of the parts will be the properties of the whole.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Composition / Exception Fallacy

Sandra: "When I sin, it is fun, so I’m going to have fun sinning all my life."

Roxanne: "The fleshly nature does love to sin; that is true. However, the wages of sin is death, and that death happens far sooner than physical death. Sin will take you farther than you wanted to go, keep you there longer than you wanted to stay, and cost more than you ever thought it would cost."

Note that this person, whether a Christian or not, is applying the properties of the moment to the entire future. This is the fallacy of composition.

Sandy: "We can observe minor changes from generation to generation in living things, so it follows that those minor changes will build up over time to the point where a single cell eventually changes into more complex living things and those increasingly complex things become a human being."

Rocky: "Small changes don’t necessarily add up to huge changes. One would ask why there are no examples, either in living things or in fossils, of one kind of living thing turning into another kind of living thing. There would be evidence of millions of transitional forms among the fossils, so many that they wouldn’t even show a distinction between kinds of animals like dogs and cats, however, such evidence is absolutely missing which might make even the most staunch Atheistic Evolutionist wonder. Not only that, but there is no mechanism to make the conclusion happen. The changes we observe are losses in information, duplication of already-existing information, and distortion of information. Some of the distorted information is slight enough that it doesn’t immediately kill the organism, but, if degradation continues, extinction occurs. New, innovative information would need to be added to cells for even the smallest step in molecules-to-man evolution. So, what we see scientifically points to creation rather than evolution, and it doesn’t’ make sense to use the fallacy of composition as supposed “proof” for molecules-to-man evolution."

Sandy was obviously using the fallacy of composition to try to convince Rocky. Good thing that Rocky was well informed. Had Rocky not been fully informed, he would only have to realize that this is the fallacy of composition presented as deceitful "proof."

Sandy: "I knew two Christians who were hypocrites. Christians are hypocrites."

Roxanne: "If we define hypocrite very broadly, every Christian’s natural, carnal mind is a hypocrite. However, by that definition of hypocrite, every person is a hypocrite, and the word is being defined so broadly that it has no meaning any more. The person who would make such a statement may have one definition for hypocrite when referring to himself/herself and another definition when referring to Christians, which is a fallacy of equivocation in itself. I'll assume you are a person who has actually been turned off by some people who label themselves as Christians but don’t really believe or follow Christ. If these two Christians who in some way offended you are indeed insincere in their Chrisian walk--that's what a hypocrit is--they are still part of the group called Christians (as long as we use a very broad definition of the word, Christian). The trouble then becomes the logical fallacy of composition which applies the attributes of the part to the whole. You knew two Christians who didn't meet your approval, and now you want to apply the actions of these two to every person who follows Christ."

This is not an uncommon application of the logical fallacy of composition to attack the work of the Holy Spirit.