Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification

The logical fallacy of reductionism / oversimplification occurs when a complex concept is reduced to a subset of its components as if it represented the whole. This often results in an oversimplified understanding of causes and possible solutions. It can also lead to questions being answered in ways that are too simple. That is, when a complex question is asked that requires several answers, a single simplified answer may be provided, but that answer isn't helpful. As with many fallacies, reductionism is often used as a tool for thinking, since the human mind is so limited. We usually can’t think about everything at once. A model, or abstraction, abstracts certain elements so that we can think about those elements and try to do analysis. However, the problem is that we sometimes forget that the model is not reality itself, and then we add it as confirmation bias to prove to ourselves that some parts of our paradigm/fake-inner-reality are real, though they are not. Water going through a garden hose is like electricity going through a wire--until you grab the end of the wire.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification

“The human body is just a combination of a few dollars’ worth of chemicals.”

“The fetus is just a blob of tissue.”

“The Constitution is merely a piece of paper.”

Sandy: "Of course life can form by random chance. Richard Dawkin’s Weasel program proves that."

Rocky: "Richard Dawkin's Weasel program actually doesn’t even replicate the part of reality that it was supposed to because it not only abstracts a subset, but it also adds in a mechanism that is never found in nature, a component that targets the desired string of letters and saves them if they fit the target. There is no mechanism like this in nature."

Richard Dawkin's Weasel program is a joke of irrationality. It's a wonder that anyone could take it seriously.

Sandy: "Thomas Hobbes reasoned that all ethics and morals are simply the result of search for pleasure and avoidance of pain."

Rocky: "Hobbes may have rationalized that, but it is an oversimplification and doesn't really answer many questions."

Whether Sandy's summary is correct or not, this is quite an oversimplification. And Hobbes would also be claiming supernatural knowledge.

Carl Segan: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be”

What a beautiful example of oversimplification. Carl is claiming to be all-knowing. He is claiming to be God. Yet, God has revealed that the cosmos is not all that is, was, or will be. We know that God created the physical cosmos and the heavenly realm as well.

Sandy: “The Crusades and Inquisition were an obvious example of the danger of religion.”

Rocky: "Have you ever considered that you may be leaving out some of the detail in your analysis?"

There was a lot more to it than that. First, there was the threat of Islam that is a religion of world dominance--and they were succeeding at that time in taking over the world by the sword. The Crusades were largely a response to the threat. At the same time, Sandy is oversimplifying by using the label, religion. All religions are not the same. Not only that, Sandy excludes Atheism and Agnosticism from the label of religion, and these two religions are extremely violent. In addition, the Church fell away from Christ just as God had foretold: There must be a falling away. While the light never went out, it appears that there was not much light in the leadership of the Church during this period.

The complexity of God’s Way understood in a single diagram

Obey your flesh and descend into darkness

How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question

Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification

Other Pages in this section

Recently Viewed