Hey what’s up guys! Kathy Gibbens here…And I’m so glad you’re back for another episode to help you learn how to think well!
I wanted to start with a review that one of you left for the show. Amyree75 said, “I love this podcast! My children and I are learning so much about critical thinking, which is a critical NEED in this day and age.” Amy, I could not agree with you more! Thank you so much for listening and I absolutely love that you’re listening with your kids, too! That totally makes my day! I have a heart for the next generation, that they can learn these principles and be impervious to foolishness!
I want to thank our sponsors, Classical Conversations, for their commitment to helping the next generation learn HOW to think. In fact, that’s one of the major reasons why my husband and I decided to homeschool our daughter with their program: because they teach kids HOW to think by giving them tools to use for good thinking! At some point, I’m going to do some episodes about the tools of good thinking, so be watching for that coming up. If you’d like to learn more, Classical Conversations is offering you two free e-books! Just go to classcialconversations.com/gibbens and fill out the form…not only will you get more info on their program, but you’ll also get these two free e-books that will dive more into this whole concept of teaching our kids HOW to think!
Today is the 3rd (& last) part of a short series I’ve been doing on 3 fallacies that are really close in similarity. Episode 66 was on the Pathetic Fallacy, Episode 67 was on Personification and today we’re talking about a fallacy called Reification. Reification is when an abstract belief or an idea is treated as though it’s a real, concrete, sometimes even a living thing or event. It is also sometimes called the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.
Ok, here’s an example of Reification: “Open your heart to love and love will find you.” Really? Is love out there looking for you? Is love a little cupid-like creature scouring the face of the earth for someone to shoot his heart-shaped arrows at? Of course not. Love is an abstract concept, a choice, an emotion, a commitment…it’s a lot of things, but it’s not something that is out there looking to find you. That’s Reification.
Or how about this one: “The evidence speaks for itself.” Really? Evidence is simply a group of facts used to make a case. It can’t speak. Researchers have to study the evidence and then THEY’RE the ones who speak & share their ideas, thoughts, opinions, interpretations of the evidence
Here’s another example: “Crime is eating away at the consumer confidence in our downtown area.” Really? Crime is eating? Obviously it’s not eating anything. In a lot of instances, like this one, Reification is a literary device to make an idea or a concept seem more understandable or relatable. It’s usually a harmless way to help people understand abstract ideas.
The problem comes when people use Reification as part of an argument & they communicate the abstract idea as though it was coming from a person or an authority.
For instance, someone who is arguing for Evolution might say, “Nature has designed some incredible creatures.” Nature is an abstract concept that can’t design things, so this really doesn’t offer an explanation for the existence of thousands of incredible creatures that we see in nature. As a Christian, I believe that God created the world, and I believe that God isn’t an abstract concept, so the creation of these incredible creatures can be attributed to Him, rather than to an abstract concept.
Here’s one more example that we’ve seen a lot of in the last few years in regards to the new Covid vaccines & boosters: “The Science Says, or The Science Has Spoken”. Ok, did the Science really speak? No, it didn’t. It was scientists interpreting data a certain way and conveying a certain message to the public. Reification is used in situations like this to manipulate or convince people to do a certain thing by making them believe that “Science” is the one giving the message rather than them. In reality, as we’ve already seen, the message has already started to change, at least in regards to this particular topic, so you have to wonder…did the science really say that or was the messaging coming from somewhere else?
Now, don’t send me messages about the vaccine! That’s not the point here - if you love it fine, if you hate it, fine, if you got it, didn’t get it…whatever, that’s not the point here. The point is that the Reification Fallacy was repeatedly used in the massaging around it.
So, the question to ask yourself when facing Reification is this: “Is the action really coming from that concept or is there someone else behind it?” *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
