====== Ontological fallacy ======

The (falsely) assumed existence of something on the grounds that there is a //name// for it, or because it is //conceivable// that there could be such a thing.

For example:

> There is the word "unicorn", which denotes a mythological creature that has certain characteristics.
> <s invalid>Consequently, there are also "unicorns" with these characteristics.</s>

===== Description =====

The mere fact that a //term// exists is not sufficient reason to assume that the //phenomenon// described by the term also exists.

This sounds obvious when you talk e.g. about mythical creatures (such as the unicorn mentioned above), but can sometimes be very challenging to clarify when it comes to abstract terms with complex implications: an expression such as "juvenile delinquency", for example, implies that it would describe a phenomenon that would have to be considered separately from //general delinquency// – whether this is really justified depends on the context. Simply assuming it is the case, because there is a word for it is however not justified. 

In political discourse in particular, terms are often used because they are catchy and easy to remember, or simply because they are already widely used, rather than because they are particularly helpful in understanding an issue. In case of doubt, it is often advisable to first clarify to what extent the respective term really makes sense in the specific context, or whether it rather only adds to misunderstandings. 

But also in sciences, e.g. for a lexicon or a glossary can an //ontological// approach (a description of existing words) produce different results than a //phenomenological// one (i.e. a description of observed phenomena). To be clear: there are useful applications for both approaches – only the advantages and disadvantages of each must be weighed up, and possibly the decisions should be made clear.

<aside info>
**Side note:** The problem described here is also a challenge for this web site project. There are many terms and expressions that might on first glance fit into the thematic scope of this website, but where it is not entirely clear whether they actually describe //existing// phenomena. The mere fact that a term exists is therefore not necessarily a good reason to include it here.
</aside>

Of course, //most// terms abnd expressions actually refer to //real// existing objects or phenomena. However, especially in the case some rather //abstract// expressions, it can still be useful to question whether this still holds true in the //specific// context that is discussed.

===== Examples =====
==== Proslogion ====

The so-called "ontological argument for the existance of God" (<span maniculus>[[wp>Proslogion|Pros­logion]]</span>), originally formulated by [[wp>Anselm of Canterbury|Anselm of Canter­bury]] can be expressed in a (highly simplified) form as follows:

> The term "God" refers to something that combines all conceivable positive qualities.
> To exist is a conceivable positive quality.
> <s conclusio invalid "this does not follow from the premise">Therefore, God exists.</s>

This is ultimately a cleverly obfuscated way of arguing that just because we can //imagine// "God" to be existant, it follows that it exists. This, however, does not follow from the premise given.

<aside info>
**Note:** Nevertheless, the above does also not //refute// the existence of God. It only shows thatthe so-called "ontological argument" – at least in the form presented here – is not a valid proof of existence. For more information on this, please see: <span maniculus>[[relevancy:fallacy-fallacy|Fallacy-fallacy]]</span>. 
</aside>

===== See also =====

  * [[abstraction:index|(Fallacies of) Abstraction]]
  * [[knowledge:epistemic_fallacy|Epistemic fallacy]]

===== More information =====

  * [[https://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/02/21/the-ontological-fallacy|The Ontological Fallacy]] on //Evolving Thoughts//