The representational fallacy

Basically Heather Dyke argues that metaphysicians are too often arguing from representations of reality (eg in language) to reality itself.

It looks to me like a variant of the mind projection fallacy. This might be the first book length treatment teh fallacy has gotten though. What do people think?

See reviews here

https://​​www.sendspace.com/​​file/​​k5x8sy

https://​​ndpr.nd.edu/​​news/​​23820-metaphysics-and-the-representational-fallacy/​​

To give bit of background there’s a debate between A-theorists and B-theorists in philosophy of time.

A-theorists think time has ontological distinctions between past present and future

B-theorists hold there is no ontological distinction between past present and future.

Dyke argues that a popular argument for A-theory (tensed language represents ontological distinctions) commits the representational fallacy. Bourne agrees , but points out an argument Dyke uses for B-theory commits the same fallacy.

No comments.