Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The ubiquity of the fallacy of composition in cognitive enhancement and in education

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research into cognitive enhancement is highly controversial, and arguments for and against it have failed to identify the logical fallacy underlying this debate: the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a lesser-known fallacy of ambiguity, but it has been explored and applied extensively to other fields, including economics. The fallacy of composition, which occurs when the characteristics of the parts of the whole are incorrectly extended to apply to the whole itself, and the conclusion is false, should be addressed in the debate on cognitive enhancement and within education. Within cognitive enhancement, the premise that individual distinct cognitive processes can be enhanced by cognitive enhancers leads to the conclusion that they must enhance cognition overall, and this idea is pervasive in the literature. If the goal of cognitive enhancement is to enhance cognition or learning, and not merely individual cognitive processes, then this is a clear example of the fallacy of composition. The ambiguity of “cognitive,” “cognition,” and “enhancement” only perpetuates this fallacy and creates more confusion surrounding the purposes and goals of enhancement. Identifying this fallacy does not threaten the existing body of research; however, it provides a novel framework to explore new avenues for research, education, and enhancement, particularly through education reform initiatives. Education enhances and facilitates learning, and improvements to education could be considered cognitive enhancements. Furthermore, the same fallacy is ubiquitous in education; educators commit it by “teaching to the test” and prioritizing memorization over generalizable skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. We will explore these new avenues for research and highlight principles of learning success from other disciplines to create a clearer understanding of the means and ends of cognitive enhancement. Recognizing the pervasiveness of composition fallacy in cognitive enhancement and education will lead to greater clarity of normative positions and insights into student learning that steer away from fallacious reasoning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dresler, Martin, Anders Sandberg, Christoph Bublitz, Kathrin Ohla, Carlos Trenado, Aleksandra Mroczko-Wąsowicz, Simone Kühn, and Dimitris Repantis. 2018. Hacking the Brain: Dimensions of Cognitive Enhancement. ACS Chemical Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschemneuro.8b00571

  2. Sharif, Safia, Amira Guirguis, Suzanne Fergus, and Fabrizio Schifano. 2021. The Use and Impact of Cognitive Enhancers among University Students: A Systematic Review. Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11030355

  3. Ranisch, Robert, Duilio Garofoli, and Veljko Dubljević. 2013. “Clock Shock,” Motivational Enhancement, and Performance Maintenance in Adderall Use. AJOB Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2012.748704

  4. Dubljević, Veljko and Christopher Ryan. 2015. Cognitive enhancement with methylphenidate and modafinil: Conceptual advances and societal implications. Neuroscience and Neuroeconomics. https://doi.org/10.2147/NAN.S61925

  5. Dubljević, Veljko. 2016. Enhancing with Modafinil: Benefiting or Harming Society? In Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Policy Implications in International Perspectives, ed. Fabrice Jotterand and Veljko Dubljević, 259 − 74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396818.001.0001

  6. Dubljević, Veljko. 2014. Neurostimulation Devices for Cognitive Enhancement: Toward a Comprehensive Regulatory Framework. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9225-0

  7. Voarino, Nathalie, Veljko Dubljević, and Eric Racine. 2017. tDCS for Memory Enhancement: Analysis of the Speculative Aspects of Ethical Issues. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00678

  8. Jensen, Charmaine, Brad Partridge, Cynthia Forlini, Wayne Hall, and Jayne Lucke. 2016. Cognitive Enhancement Down-Under. Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Policy Implications in International Perspectives, ed. Fabrice Jotterand and Veljko Dubljević, 147 − 58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396818.003.0010

  9. Faber, Nadira, Julian Savulescu, and Thomas Douglas. 2016. Why is Cognitive Enhancement Deemed Unacceptable? The Role of Fairness, Deservingness, and Hollow Achievements. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00232

  10. Schermer, Maartje. 2008. On the argument that enhancement is “cheating.” Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2006.019646

  11. Dubljević, Veljko, Sebastian Sattler, and Eric Racine. 2014. Cognitive Enhancement and Academic Misconduct: A Study Exploring Their Frequency and Relationship. Ethics & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.869747

  12. Rowe, William L. 1962. The Fallacy of Composition. Mind. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXXI.281.87

  13. Racine, Eric, Veljko Dubljević, Ralf J. Jox, Bernard Baertschi, Julia F. Christensen, Michele Farisco, Fabrice Jotterand, Guy Kahane, and Sabine Müller. 2017. Can Neuroscience Contribute to Practical Ethics? A Critical Review and Discussion of the Methodological and Translational Challenges of the Neuroscience of Ethics. Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12357

  14. Walton, Douglas N. 1987. Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs

  15. Finocchiaro, Maurice A. 2013. The Fallacy of Composition and Meta-Argumentation. OSSA Conference Archive. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/48/

  16. Gough, James E. and Mano Daniel. 2009. The Fallacy of Composition. OSSA Conference Archive. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/papersandcommentaries/61/

  17. Michels, Robert. 1962. Political Parties. New York: Free Press.

  18. Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  19. Iuculano, Tersa and Roi Cohen Kadosh. 2013. The Mental Cost of Cognitive Enhancement. Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4927-12.2013

  20. Dubljević, Veljko. 2019. Neuroethics, Justice, and Autonomy: Public Reason in the Cognitive Enhancement Debate. Springer.

  21. Gyngell, Chris, Selgelid Michael. 2016. Human Enhancement: Conceptual Clarity and Moral Significance. In The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate, ed. Steve Clarke, Julian Savulescu, C. A. J. Coady, Alberto Giubilini, Sagar Sanyal, 111–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198754855.001.0001

  22. Bostrom, Nick and Anders Sandberg. 2009. Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9142-5

  23. Buchanan, Allen. 2011. Cognitive Enhancement and Education. Theory and Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409623

  24. Flanigan, Jessica. 2013. Adderall for All: A Defense of Pediatric Neuroenhancement. HEC Forum. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-013-9222-4

  25. Lynch, Gary, Linda C. Palmer, and Christine M. Gall. 2011. The Likelihood of Cognitive Enhancement. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2010.12.024

  26. Dresler, Martin and Dimitris Repantis. 2015. Cognitive Enhancement in Humans. In Cognitive Enhancement, ed. Shira Knafo and César Venero, 273–306. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417042-1.00011-5

  27. Sattler, Sebastian and Ilina Singh. 2016. Cognitive Enhancement in Healthy Children Will Not Close the Achievement Gap in Education. The American Journal of Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1170240

  28. Zohny, Hazem. 2015. The Myth of Cognitive Enhancement Drugs. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-015-9232-9

  29. Fallon, Sean James, Marike E. van der Schaaf, Niels ter Huurne, and Roshan Cools. 2017. The Neurocognitive Cost of Enhancing Cognition with Methylphenidate: Improved Distractor Resistance but Impaired Updating. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-015-9232-9

  30. Faulmüller, Nadira, Hannah Maslen, Filippo Santoni de Sio. 2013. The Inderect Psychological Costs of Cognitive Enhancement. The American Journal of Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2013.794880

  31. Marabini, Alessia, Luca Moretti. 2020. Goldman and Siegel on the Epistemic Aims of Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12398

  32. Hart Research Associates. 2015. Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success. American Association of Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/research/falling-short-college-learning-and-career-success

  33. James, Susan, Chris Warhurst, Gerbrand Tholen, and Johanna Commander. 2013. What We Know and What We Need to Know About Graduate Skills. Work, Employment, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017013500116

  34. Fiorella, Logan, and Richard E. Mayer. 2016. Eight Ways to Promote Generative Learning. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9

  35. Abadzi, Helen. 2016. Training 21st-Century Workers: Facts, Fiction, and Memory Illusions. International Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-016-9565-6

  36. Klenkowski, Val and Merilyn Carter. 2016. Curriculum Reform in Testing and Accountability Contexts. In The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Assessment: Two Volume Set, ed. Dominic Wyse, Louise Hayward, and Jessica Pandya, 790–804. Sage Reference. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921405.n49

  37. Carrell, Scott E. and James E. West. 2010. Does Professor Quality Matter? Evidence from Random Assignment of Students to Professors. Journal of Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1086/653808

  38. Lam, Ricky. 2018. Testing, drilling and learning: what purpose does the Grade 3 Territory-wide System Assessment serve? Asia Pacific Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9523-z

  39. Rohrer, Doug, Robert F. Dedrick, and Marissa K. Hartwig. 2020. The Scarcity of Interleaved Practice in Mathematics Textbooks. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09516-2

  40. Temkin, Deborah A., Daniel Priniciotta, Renee Ryberg, and Daniel S. Lewin. 2018. Later Start, Longer Sleep: Implications of Middle School Start Times. Journal of School Health. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12622

  41. Gerber, Lois. 2014. Sleep deprivation in children: A growing public health concern. Nursing Management https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000451997.95978.2f

  42. Perkinson-Gloor, Nadine, Sakari Lemola, and Alexander Grob. 2013. Sleep Duration, Positive Attitude toward Life, and Academic Achievement: The Role of Daytime Tiredness, Behavioral Persistence, and School Start Times. Journal of Adolescence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.11.008

  43. Kirby, Matthew, Stefania Maggi, and Amedeo D’Angiulli. 2011. School Start Times and the Sleep–Wake Cycle of Adolescents: A Review and Critical Evaluation of Available Evidence. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11402323

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the NeuroComputational Ethics Research Group at NC State University — in alphabetical order, Iris Coates McCall, Allen Coin, Ronnie Dempsey, Elizabeth Eskander, Anirudh Nair, and Abigail Presley, for their valuable discussion and feedback on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Nora Edgren & Veljko Dubljević

Authors
  1. Nora Edgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veljko Dubljević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veljko Dubljević.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Edgren, N., Dubljević, V. The ubiquity of the fallacy of composition in cognitive enhancement and in education. Theor Med Bioeth 44, 41–56 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09595-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09595-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation