(Fallacies of) Abstraction

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

For example:

Mother nature cares for her children.

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.

• Reification in this context refers to the tendency to see abstract concepts as concrete things.

• Anthropomorphisation describes the error of ascribing human characteristics or attributes to plants, animals or even inanimate things (e.g. stones, water …).

• Objectification (of human beings) on the other hand, is when people are treated as if they are things or abstract concepts.

• The ontological fallacy is committed when one assumes that something exists because there is a name for it.

• The semiotic fallacy consists in the confusion of a symbol with the symbolised object or concept.

• The epistemic fallacy is practically the counterpart to the ontological one: here, existence is erroneously inferred from cognition.