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



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.