Day: April 26, 2005

Posted on

Instapundit poos the scrootch on this one

Class vs Individual: Glenn Reynolds makes an error of composition*
 
Darn.  You’d think a guy as sharp as Glenn Reynolds—and a law prof to boot—would know the difference between an individual part and the whole in an argument.  Read this post and come on back.
 
Yes, I understand he never actually says that all Home Depot stores are like the store he refers to, but he “disses” Home Depot as a whole by implication by including in and framing his remarks around a reference to a site that does “diss” Home Depot Stores in general.
 
Now, if he were to shop at the Home Depot and Lowes stores nearest me, he’d have a flip-flop of the experience he relates on his site.  Does that mean that I should generalize the nature of the local Lowes store and mention a site that regularly “disses” all Lowes stores, as a group, just because I find the nearest Lowes store to be dysfunctional?  Does it mean that I should imply that all Home Depot stores are as well-run as the one nearest me?  No to both, because I do not know the other Lowes and Home Depot stores. (Well, I do know one more of each, and—in my neck of the woods—they are each like the ones nearest me: Lowes, so-so; Home Depot, very good.)
 
Of course, do note that Glenn only implies (by framing his remarks in the context of another site’s “dissing” of Home Depots in general) that his experience at one Home Depot store is normative for the whole. But that’s a sloppiness that really ought not to be in such a widely-read blog… by a law prof.
 
;Error of composition: assuming, implying or stating that what is true of the parts of an entity is true of the whole. “Some whites once owned slaves;  therefore all whites were slave owners,” is one such error of composition.  “I know a man who abused his wife, therefore all men are abusers of women,” is another such error of composition.  “Shopping at my local Home Depot store is a lousy experience and The Corner doesn’t like them, either,  therefore… ” heh. Indeed.
Posted on

Did someone say, “Kipling Tuesday”?

Cold Iron
Rudyard Kipling
 
“Gold is for the mistress — silver for the maid —
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade.”
“Good!” said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
“But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of them all.”
 
So he made rebellion ‘gainst the King his liege,
Camped before his citadel and summoned it to siege.
“Nay!” said the cannoneer on the castle wall,
“But Iron — Cold Iron — shall be master of you all!”
 
Woe for the Baron and his knights so strong,
When the cruel cannon-balls laid ’em all along;
He was taken prisoner, he was cast in thrall,
And Iron — Cold Iron — was master of it all!
 
Yet his King spake kindly (ah, how kind a Lord!)
“What if I release thee now and give thee back thy sword?”
“Nay!” said the Baron, “mock not at my fall,
For Iron — Cold Iron — is master of men all.”
 
“Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown —
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown.”
“As my loss is grievous, so my hope is small,
For Iron — Cold Iron — must be master of men all!”
 
Yet his King made answer (few such Kings there be!)
“Here is Bread and here is Wine — sit and sup with me.
Eat and drink in Mary’s Name, the whiles I do recall
How Iron — Cold Iron — can be master of men all!”
 
He took the Wine and blessed it. He blessed and brake the Bread.
With His own Hands He served Them, and presently He said:
“See! These Hands they pierced with nails, outside My city wall,
Show Iron — Cold Iron — to be master of men all.”
 
“Wounds are for the desperate, blows are for the strong.
Balm and oil for weary hearts all cut and bruised with wrong.
I forgive thy treason — I redeem thy fall —
For Iron — Cold Iron — must be master of men all!”
 
“Crowns are for the valiant — sceptres for the bold!
Thrones and powers for mighty men who dare to take and hold!”
“Nay!” said the Baron, kneeling in his hall,
“But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of men all!
Iron out of Calvary is master of men all!”