It's not universally accepted that it is fallacy. And for whatever it misses, reductionism is a hell of a tool that has been incredibly useful in understanding the world.
Of course, so are chemistry and biology, so blithely dismissed in the parent comment.
> Of course, so are chemistry and biology, so blithely dismissed in the parent comment.
I didn't dismiss them at all, I explicitly said they are epistemically useful, but that doesn't entail we should accept them into our core ontology.
It's a philosophy not a fallacy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/
This fallacy is called "reductionism."