====== Semiotic fallacy ======

The (mistaken) conflation of a //symbol// with the object or concept it represents.

<aside float-right noprint>
<figure box no-filter>
<a [href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images#/media/File:MagrittePipe.jpg] [target=_blank]>The Treachery of Images</a>
<figcaption>René Magritte: <i :fr>La trahison des images</i> (1929)<div [style=line-height:1.2em]>[[wp>The Treachery of Images|(due to the uncertain copyright situation, the image can unfortunately not be shown here. This link leads to the Wikipedia article)]]</div></figcaption>
</figure>
</aside>

The best-known and most impressive description of this error in thinking is probably [[wp>René Magritte|René Magritte]]’s painting "<i :fr>La trahison des images</i>" (<span maniculus>[[wp>The Treachery of Images|The Treachery of Images]]</span>).

The picture shows a tobacco pipe against a monochrome background. Underneath is written: "<i :fr>Ceci n’est pas une pipe</i>" (French: "This is not a pipe").

In this context, the solution to this apparent contradiction is of course quite obvious: it is indeed not a //pipe//, but the //picture of a pipe//.

<aside info>
**Note:** The term "semiotic fallacy" is also used by different authors in some contexts in other meanings. These include, among others, what is referred to here as the [[abstraction:ontological_fallacy|ontological fallacy]], as well as the various fallacious arguments that are described under “[[rhetorics:appeal_to_consequences:index|appeal to consequences]]”.
</aside>

===== Description =====

Symbols are //principally// not the identical with the object they symbolise: The word "tree" is not a tree but a //word//, just as the //image of a pipe// is not a pipe but an //image//.

Even in the example above, where the distinction between the //object// and its //image// should actually be quite easy to comprehend, most viewers first tend to interpret this apparent self-contradiction as a form of //surrealist// aspect of the painting (which is of course encouraged by the fact that the artist is known as a representative of [[wp>Surrealism|surrealism]] in painting).

It becomes even more difficult when the symbols also refer to abstract facts (e.g. at a different level of abstraction). In such cases it can be difficult even for experts to recognise this condition.

This concerns, for example, mathematical models of certain //physical// or even //economic// phenomena: these models //are// not the phenomena, but they are symbolic //representations// that seek to represent or model the actual phenomena.

==== Reverse semiotic error ====

The conflation can also go in the opposite direction, i.e. that a concrete phenomenon is confused with the abstract concept for it.

An example of this would be confusing the (measurable) <abbr>[[wp>Intelligence quotient|IQ]]</abbr> with the (abstract and unmeasurable) [[wp>Intelligenz|intelligence]] of a person.

==== Exception ====

**Homologues**/**autologues**: The word "word" is exactly what it describes, namely a //word//. Similar self-describing symbols can also be well imagined in other contexts, such as a sign that says: "sign".

===== Examples =====
FIXME **This section is still in progress and will be added later.**
===== See also =====

  * [[rhetorics:appeal_to_consequences:index|Appeal to consequences]]
  * [[abstraction:ontological_fallacy|Ontological fallacy]]