Diskussion:Ökologischer Fehlschluss

Trugschluss der Division

Kann man den Trugschluss der Division hier einbauen, oder wäre das Theoriefindung? --Hob (Diskussion) 11:35, 26. Jan. 2017 (CET)

Kolletiv

Im Bild fehlt zweimal der Buchstabe "k". --178.7.187.131 11:51, 1. Mai 2018 (CEST)

Picture caption describes methodological individuals not ecological fallacy

The picture's caption incorrectly identifies where the ecological fallacy would occur in the visualized reasoning. As correctly mentioned in the text, it would occur when one generalizes an aggregate or collective process to the individual level, or vice versa: a recursive line between (1) and (3), not (1) and (4).

Example ecological fallacy: say, in Germany, there is a wage gap among men and women equal to 30 cents per euro; it would be ecologically fallacious to conclude that this aggregate relationship (gender -> wage earnings in the German population) represents also what happens at the individual level and that, say, Jens makes 30 cents more per Euro than Martha. Alternatively, say that Jens makes 30 cents per Euro more than Martha; it would be fallacious to assume that this individual relationship (gender -> wage earnings seen between Jens and Martha) represents also what happens at the aggregate level and that, in Germany, men make 30 cents more per Euro than women.

Instead of describing the ecological fallacy, the picture's caption describes "methodological individualism" (EN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_individualism / DE: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodologischer_Individualismus). This is a dominant, though not uncontested, epistemological assumption in social science.