Logical Fallacy of Reification / Anti-Conceptual Mentality Fallacy / Attributing Concreteness to the Abstract / Concretism / Hypostatization Fallacy / Objectification

Reification is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The Logical Fallacy of Reification / Anti-Conceptual Mentality Fallacy / Attributing Concreteness to the Abstract / Concretism / Hypostatization Fallacy / Objectification occurs when concepts, theories, assumptions, or abstractions are treated as concrete facts or realities. The fallacy is attributing concreteness to the abstract. People who commit this fallacy usually flow between actual evidence (observations and  sound logic) into unsupported assertions, presuppositions, and fabrications without ever knowing that something has changed. They don’t perceive the difference between reality and storytelling.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Reification / Anti-Conceptual Mentality Fallacy / Attributing Concreteness to the Abstract / Concretism / Hypostatization Fallacy / Objectification

Seth et al., “Theories and measures of consciousness:  “Given that consciousness is a rich biological phenomenon, a satisfactory neural theory of consciousness must avoid reductionistic excess.”

This is reification of "consciousness," in this case, trying to make it into a biological phenomenon.

Sandy: "Science tells us that evolution is a fact."

Rocky: "Science isn't a person who speaks. How are you defining science? Or are you speaking poetically?"

The way that Sandy states his case, it seems as if the monolithic person called "science" has spoken the unquestionable truth. Rocky noticed the fallacy and wisely didn't name the fallacy but rather asked for clarification.

Sandy: "The fossils tell us that evolution happened."

Rocky: "I assume, by 'evolution,' you mean molecules turned into humans. Of course, fossils don't speak. Scientific observations don't speak. They must be interpreted and conclusions must be drawn. I don't know if you are familiar with Agrippa's Trilemma, but barring Divine revelation or a message from a demon, the only options for interpretation of observation are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or made-up assumptions. None of these can get you to a sound conclusion. The best you can do is pragmatism, but interpretations of the past don't lend themselves well to pragmatism. You are starting your interpretation with certain basic secular assumptions. My reasoning is based on Divine revelation as a starting point. So the fossils aren't talking, but your assumptions are guiding your thoughts, and God is speaking to me. God says that He created the Heavens and the Earth in six days. Nothing that can be observed using scientific method conflicts with what God is saying."

The real conflict always seems to come down to Agrippa's Trilemma, which exposes the three possible irrational foundations for secular thinking. None of these can bring about a sound conclusion. Rejecting Divine revelation based on assumptions, infinite regression, or circular reasoning is quite foolish. This is especially true when anyone who seeks Christ will find Christ. Those who seek Christ for answers to life's questions will find that He does give wisdom. He doesn't always answer as you would expect. Sometimes, you are asking the wrong question.