The Fallacy of Reification

reificationThe fallacy of reification occurs when someone attributes a concrete character to something abstract. “Follow the evidence where is leads,” is a typical example. Actually, the evidence cannot lead anyone anywhere! ‘Evidence’ is an abstract property that must be interpreted to have meaning. For instance, a pile of bones in the ground (evidence) has no meaning. But scientists can interpret this evidence to come up with a belief about how the animal lived or died.

Of course, it is completely acceptable that reification be used as a figure of speech, but using it in an argument is a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, this is what evolutionists commonly do. For instance, one might say “The evidence says evolution is true”. The evidence can say nothing — only with an interpretation of that evidence can one determine if evolution were possible (an interpretation does not determine absolute truth).

The Fallacy of Equivocation
The Fallacy of Bifurcation
Affirming the Antecedent/Consequent
Similarities and Homology: Not Evidence for Evolution!
The Fallacy of Special Pleading
comments powered by Disqus