구글와이드(336x280)_상단 2개


전세계 성형 전문의가 뽑은 최고 미인? 반응은 '글쎄…' TV 방송, 문화, 연예


전세계 
성형 전문의가 뽑은 최고 미인? 반응은 '글쎄…'


기존 여배우들의 장점만을 조합한 최고의 얼굴이 공개됐다.

영국 매체 데일리메일은 8일 패션매거진 '마리끌레르' 호주판 4월호를 통해 전세계 이름난 성형외과 전문의들이 선호하는 스타들의 얼굴을 조합해 만든 이상적인 얼굴이 공개됐다고 전했다. 매거진 측은 "자료를 수집하고 분석하는 데만 1년이 걸렸다"고 설명했다.

이상적인 얼굴에는 미국 드라마 '매드멘(Mad Men)'으로 인기를 얻은 배우 재뉴어리 존스(34)의 뺨과 영화 '악마는 프라다를 입는다'로 국내 팬들에게 익숙한 배우 앤 해서웨이(30)의 눈, '레옹'의 꼬마 숙녀 마틸다를 연기하며 깊은 인상을 남긴 뒤 연기는 물론 학업 면으로도 진가를 보이며 꾸준히 활동해오고 있는 엄친딸 배우 나탈리 포트만(31)의 코, 할리우드 대표 섹시 배우 스칼렛 요한슨(28)의 입 등이 포함됐다.

그러나 그 조합이 최선의 결과는 아닌 듯하다. 육안으로 보기에도 기존배우들보다 월등하다고 하긴 힘들다. 마치 성형을 한 듯 어색한 코와 입매가 감탄을 자아내기보다는 거부감을 일으킨다. 이는 해외 네티즌들 역시 마찬가지. 네티즌들은 "자료가 잘 못 된 것 아니냐", "기존 여배우들이 더 예쁜 것 같다", "좋은 걸 합쳤다고 최고가 나오는 건 아닌 듯"이라며 의아해했다. 해당 사진을 낸 매거진 측도 이러한 반응에는 이견이 없는 것으로 보인다. '마리끌레르' 측은 "있는 그대로가 제일 예쁘다는 것을 보여주고 싶었다"고 해명했다.

 



http://media.daum.net/entertain/enews/view?newsid=20120309171330490 


 

위 사진은 어디까지나 서양 백인들이 생각하는 전형적인 미녀의 모데일 뿐이다.

즉, 결코 동양인들이나 흑인들에게도 가장 이상적인 미녀의 모델은 아니라는 말이다.
그런데도 서양놈들은 지네들이 세계의 전부라고 흔히 착각하고 오만방자를 떤다.

예컨데, 만일 흑인 국가와 사회에서 가장 최고의 미녀 모델을 만들어냈다면
아마도 흑인 모습이었을 가능성이 크다. 또는 동양 국가들 중에서 그런 모델을
생각해 보았더라면 아마 동양적 여성의 모습이었을 것이다.

그럼에도 불구하고 서양놈들이 지네들 세계가 마치 전세계라도 되는 양
사고방식 자체가 오만방자하기 짝이 없는데....우리는 서양놈들의
그런 오만방자하고 틀려처먹은 세계관에 함께 끌려들어갈 필요는 없을 것이다.

 어쨌든.....

위 문제는 소위 "구성의 오류"(Fallacy of Composition)라고 하는 철학적, 논리학적 문제로서
그것이 무엇인지 간단히 알아보고 넘어가고자 한다.

"구성의 오류"란.....부분들의 합이 곧 언제나 전체와 같은 것은 아니라는 말이다.
또는 다르게 표현하면.....부분들이 옳다고 해서, 그 부분들을 모아놓은 전체도
언제나 옳은 것은 아니라는 의미이다.

그게 도대체 무슨 얘기인지....좀더 구체적 예를 들어 알아보면...

예를 들자면.....세포는 인간의 육안으로 보이지 않는다.
그런데 인간은 세포로 되어 있다.
따라서 인간은 육안으로 보이지 않는다.

라고......추론한다면.....그건 그야말로 
엉터리 주장임을 우리 모두가 다 알고 있지요.

즉, 세포인 부분들이 육안으로 안보인다고 해서....
그 전체가 모인 인간 육체 자체도 안보인다고
추론한다는 것은 논리적 추론의 오류라는 말입니다.

마찬가지로.....
미녀의 부분들만 모아놓는다고 해서
그 전체가 곧 미녀가 되는 것은 아닐런지도 모를 일입니다.

즉, 전체는 부분들의 단순한 합이 아니라는 말입니다.

참고로.,...
경제학에서는 그 문제를 "절약의 역설"이라고 하지요.

 



Fallacy of composition

The 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)  

 예)

  1. Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
  2. Humans are made up of human cells.
  3. Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition 
------------------------------

Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless. 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html 
------------------------------

Atoms are not visible to the naked eye.

Humans are made up of atoms.

Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/fallacy-of-composition.php 
-------------------------------

The Fallacies of Composition and Division

Terms are words or phrases that designate classes.


General terms designate classes with more than one member, e.g., common nouns such as “book” or “tree.”


Singular terms designate individuals, e.g., proper nouns (“The Taj Mahal”), or proper names (“Princess Diana”).

 

Non-denoting terms refer to the empty class (also known as the “null set”), e.g., “mermaid.”

 

The denotation of a term is, for general terms, the class of things in the world to which the termcorrectly applies. Philosophical synonyms for “denotation” are “reference” and “extension.” For example, the denotation (or “reference” or “extension”) of the term “book” is all books. 

The connotation of a term is the list of membership conditions for the denotation. Philosophical synonyms for “connotation” are “sense,” “intension,” and “real definition.” Note this sense of “connotation” differs from the literary sense. Again, as language and thought evolves, connotations get modified.
 

The connotation of the general term “square” is “rectangular and equilateral.” Thedenotation of the general term “square” is all squares.

We often use general terms as the subjects of statements. (A statement is a kind of sentence– the kind of sentence that states that something is so, as opposed to questions or exclamations or commands, which don’t explicitly claim anything. Statements are also calledassertions or claims.   A statement has a subject and a predicate. The subject of the statement is what it’s about. The predicate of a statement is what’s said about the subject.)

“Cats are mammals.”

“Dogs are never vegetarians.”

“Animals have roamed the earth longer than humans.”

“Passengers on this airline have their choice of three meals.”

 

In the first statement above, the predicate is “are mammals”.  Note that the noun “mammals” in the predicate is also a general term denoting a class. The statement “Cats are mammals” says that the class of cats is a subclass of the class of mammals.  Or, all the members of the denotation of “cats” are also members of the denotation of “mammals.”[1]


The fallacies of composition and division arise from ambiguity in the denotation of general terms in cases like (1) – (4) above, where the general term functions as the subject of a statement.

When a general term is the subject of a statement, the predicate of the statement can apply to itcollectively or distributively .
 

Consider the following two statements:
 

1.      Passengers on this airline fly millions of miles a year.

 

2.      Passengers on this airline have their choice of three meals.

 

These statements have the same subject term (“passengers on this airline”). But notice that the predicates apply to this subject differently.  In the first sentence, the predicate “fly millions of miles a year” is true of passengers on this airline considered as a group, but it is not true of each passenger, since many airline passengers do not fly millions of miles a year. However, thecollective mileage of all the passengers considered as a group does amount to millions of miles a year, so in that sense the statement is true.

 

In the second sentence, the predicate “have their choice of three meals” is true of each passenger, but it is not true of the passengers considered as a group. (It’s not like there are only three meals that all the passengers have to share, so each passenger gets only a few molecules – no, each passenger can choose among three whole meals.)

 

A predicate applies to a general-term subject collectively if and only if the statement is true of the denotation of the subject term considered as a whole unit, but the statement is not necessarily true of each member of the denotation. In statement (1) above, the predicate applies collectively.

 

A predicate applies to a general-term subject distributively if and only if the statement is true of each member of the denotation, but not necessarily true of the denotation considered as a whole.In statement (2) above, the predicate applies distributively.

 

Here is a simple rule to remember the difference.  Ask yourself, “Could I rephrase this statement beginning with the word “each” and preserve truth value?”   If yes, the predicate applies distributively. If no, the predicate applies collectively. This simple rule works well in many cases.

 

Try it!

 

1.      Cats are mammals.

2.      Animals have roamed the earth longer than humans.

 

In (1) the predicate applies distributively, since it’s true that each cat is a mammal.  So you could reasonably argue:

 

Cats are mammals.

Fluffy is a cat.

So Fluffy is a mammal.

 

In (2), the predicate applies collectively but not distributively, since it’s not true that each animal has roamed the earth longer than humans. So you can’t reasonably argue:

 

Animals have roamed the earth longer than humans.

My dog Spot is an animal.

So Spot has roamed the earth longer than humans.

 

Do you see that collective and distributive predication matter, then? I hope so!

 

Now let’s look at some fallacious arguments, where the fallacy consists in confusion ofcollective and distributive predication. Many of these arguments are obviously bad, and funny.  For example,

 

Twenty percent of the men who attend WVC are married.

Jack attends WVC.

So twenty percent of Jack is married.

 

What’s wrong exactly?  It’s that the predicate “married” applies to the subject “twenty percent of the men who attend WVC” collectively; in other words, if you consider the whole group of guys who attend WVC, you’ll find that twenty percent of the whole group are married.  The predicate is not true of each man (it doesn’t apply distributively; it’s true of some and false of others), but it does apply to the men considered as a whole.

 

Arguments like this are said to commit the fallacy of division. The fallacy of division consists inassuming (wrongly) that a predicate that applies collectively must also apply distributively.

 

Here’s another silly argument:

 

The atoms comprising this barrel of bricks are practically weightless.

So this barrel of bricks is practically weightless.

 

The predicate “practically weightless” is true of each atom; i.e., it is true of the barrel of bricks distributively, if you think of the barrel of bricks as a collection of atoms. Yet the predicate is clearly false when you think of the barrel of bricks as a whole; barrels of bricks have noticeable weight.

 

Arguments like this are said to commit the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition consists in assuming (wrongly) that a predicate that applies to a subject distributively must also apply collectively.

 

These examples have been silly, but they point to deep philosophical issues. For example, many people would agree with the following argument:

 

Everything in the universe has a cause.

So the universe as a whole must have a cause.

 

Now, the predicate “caused” is true of everything in the universe (nothing is uncaused); in other words, the predicate “caused” is true of the universe distributively.  But from that, can we be certain it’s true collectively as well? No, because we know that predicates true distributively are not necessarily true collectively. This argument commits the fallacy of composition.

 

Here’s another, more complex and extremely common argument:

 

1.      All the individual cells comprising my body lack consciousness (i.e., no individual cell is conscious).

2.      Therefore, my body can’t be conscious.

3.      But I am conscious.

4.      Therefore, I must be more than a mere body. I must have a mysterious non-physical component to account for my consciousness.

 

I hope you see that the move from (1) to (2) is clearly a fallacy of composition. What’s true of my cells (me distributively) is not necessarily true of me (me collectively, i.e., as a person or body). So the argument consisting of statements (2) through (4), though of modus tollens form and valid, is still unsound.

 

Emergent Properties
 

Some properties emerge only after you combine things into wholes. Such properties are called, not surprisingly, emergent properties. That’s often why what’s true of the parts isn’t necessarily true of the wholes, and vice-versa. Using John Searle’s famous example, being wet is an emergent property of water.  None of the water molecules are wet. But wetness happens when you put enough of those molecules together. Obviously, then, the following argument is silly:

 

1.      All the individual molecules comprising this water lack wetness.

2.      Therefore, this water can’t be wet.

3.      But this water is wet.

4.      Therefore, this water must be more than these mere molecules.  This water must have a mysterious non-physical component to account for its wetness.

 

The move from (1) to (2) is an obvious fallacy of composition because wetness is an emergent property. Searle says consciousness is an emergent property of brains just like wetness is an emergent property of water.  Neither wetness nor consciousness necessarily requires anything non-physical to explain it. 

 
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/composition_and_division.htm  

-------------------

Teaching the Fallacy of Composition: The Federal Budget Deficit

One of the most important concepts we teach in economics, and most importantly in macroeconomics, is the notion of the fallacy of composition.


Students and others who haven’t been exposed to macroeconomics naturally extrapolate from their own individual situation to society and the economy as a whole.


This often leads to the problem of the fallacy of composition. Of course, that isn’t just restricted to economics. While a few people could exit the doors of a crowded movie theatre, all of us could not.


The macroeconomics example of the fallacy of composition most often used is the paradox of thrift. Any individual can increase her saving by reducing her spending—on consumption goods. So long as her decision does not affect her income—and there is no reason to assume that it would—she ends up with less consumption and more saving.

http://www.neweconomicperspectives.org/2009/08/teaching-fallacy-of-composition-federal.html  









바보들의 영문법 카페(클릭!!)

오늘의 메모....

시사평론-정론직필 다음 카페
http://cafe.daum.net/sisa-1

바보들의 영문법 다음 카페
http://cafe.daum.net/babo-edu/

티스토리 내 블로그
http://earthly.tistory.com/

내 블로그에 있는 모든 글들과 자료에 대한 펌과 링크는 무제한 허용됩니다.
(단, 내 블로그에 덧글쓰기가 차단된 자들에게는 펌, 트랙백, 핑백 등이 일체 허용되지 않음.)

그리고 내 블로그 최근글 목록을 제목별로 보시려면....
바로 아래에 있는 이전글 목록의 최근달을 클릭하시면 됩니다.
그러면 제목을 보고 편하게 글을 골라 보실 수 있습니다.

그리고 내 블로그내 글을 검색하시려면 아래 검색버튼을 이용하시면 됩니다.


가가챗창

flag_Visitors

free counters