====== (Fallacies of) Abstraction ======

The use of terms and concepts at an unjustified level of abstraction.

For example:

> <s invalid "Anthropomorphization of an abstract concept">Mother nature cares for her children.</s>

There is of course nothing wrong with using an expressions such as “mother nature” in a purely //metaphorical// sense. It becomes //fallacious// only when the abstract nature of such a concept is ignored and it is treated as if it existed in reality, or at least on a different level of abstraction.

In this case, “nature” is an //abstract concept// that is used to describe a wide range of phenomena. It is not an anthropomorphic being which may have motherly feelings or a sense of duty to care for any creature or being.

===== Sub-topics =====

<aside info>
**Note:** The meanings of the terms described in this category may overlap greatly depending on the context.
</aside>

  * [[abstraction:reification|Reification]] in this context refers to the tendency to see //abstract// concepts as //concrete// things.

  * [[abstraction:anthropomorphisation|Anthropomorphisation]] describes the error of ascribing human characteristics or attributes to plants, animals or even inanimate things (e.g. stones, water …).

  * [[abstraction:objectification|Objectification (of human beings)]] on the other hand, is when people are treated as if they are things or abstract concepts.

  * The [[abstraction:ontological_fallacy|ontological fallacy]] is committed when one assumes that something exists because there is a name for it.

  * The [[abstraction:semiotic_fallacy|semiotic fallacy]] consists in the confusion of a //symbol// with the symbolised object or concept.

===== Related topics =====

  * The [[knowledge:epistemic_fallacy|epistemic fallacy]] is practically the counterpart to the //ontological// one: here, //existence// is erroneously inferred from //cognition//.