in linking the individual to the general, or parts to the whole, or the universal to the particular. The validity of such arguments is case-dependent: arguments with identical form can be valid or invalid, depending on the specific relationship between parts and whole.
- False extrapolation to the whole is the false conclusion that the whole exhibits some characteristic because one or more parts exhibit it. The argument is structurally valid; whether it is correct or not requires careful evaluation of the content, because sometimes extrapolation to the whole is warranted. For example:
Invalid: “The mistaken belief that technology is applied science . . . implies that any advance in scientific knowledge could be harnessed to useful applications” [Bauer, 1994]. Actually, scientists argue only that many scientific advances have valuable practical applications.
Valid: “This prediction of the hypothesis is refuted, and therefore the hypothesis is disproved.”
Invalid: “This prediction of the hypothesis is confirmed, and therefore the hypothesis is proved.”
Valid: “This premise in the argument is false; thus the argument is false.”
Invalid: “Every premise in the argument is true; thus the argument is true.” Remember that the truth of a conclusion depends both on the truth of premises and on the validity of the logic.
- False extrapolation to parts is the false conclusion that a part exhibits some characteristic because the whole exhibits it. This potential fallacy is the reverse of the previous one. The conclusion may be either correct or incorrect depending on the content:
Valid: “The argument is correct (valid and true), so every premise must be true.”
Invalid: “The argument is incorrect (either invalid or untrue), so every premise mustbe false.”
Valid: “This journal requires peer review for its papers; therefore this article in the journal has been peer reviewed.”
Invalid: “That scientific meeting is worth attending, and consequently every talk at the meeting is worth attending.”
- False extrapolation to the individual is misapplication of a generalization to an individual case. This fallacy is the reverse of hasty generalization, and it is somewhat similar to the fallacy of false extrapolation to parts. Like these, it may be correct or incorrect depending on the content. The fallacy lies in ignoring evidence that the general rule is inappropriate to this specific case.
“Publication is an essential part of any research project. Therefore my manuscript should not be refused publication even if the reviews were negative.”
