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