D. A. Carson opens his chapter entitled “Logical Fallacies” in Exegetical Fallacies (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996; pp. 87–123) with this:
Why Are Fire Engines Red?
They have four wheels and eight men;
four plus eight is twelve;
twelve inches make a ruler;
a ruler is Queen Elizabeth;
Queen Elizabeth sails the seven seas;
the seven seas have fish;
the fish have fins;
the Finns hate the Russians;
the Russians are red;
fire engines are always rushin’;
so they’re red.I do not remember where I learned this little gem, but it raises in an extreme form the subject of logic. We see the argument is ridiculous; but why is it ridiculous? What is the nature of the breaches as we move from line to line, or even within one line? Why should we not accept this argument as a valid answer to the question, “Why are fire engines red?”
Carson proceeds to discuss “The Nature and Universality of Logic” followed by “A Select List of Logical Fallacies” (with explanations and illustrations):
- False disjunctions: an improper appeal to the law of the excluded middle
- Failure to recognize distinctions
- Appeal to selective evidence
- Improperly handled syllogisms
- Negative inferences
- World–view confusion
- Fallacies of question–framing
- Unwarranted confusion of truth and precision
- Purely emotive appeals
- Unwarranted generalization and overspecification
- Unwarranted associative jumps
- False statements
- The non sequitur
- Cavalier dismissal
- Fallacies based on equivocal argumentation
- Inadequate analogies
- Abuse of “obviously” and similar expressions
- Simplistic appeals to authority
Carson concludes,
These are certainly not the only logical fallacies than can trip up those of us who are intimately involved in the exegesis of the Bible; but they are among the most common. All of us will fall afoul of one or more of these fallacies at some time or another; but alert awareness of their prevalence and nature may help us escape their clutches more frequently than would otherwise be the case.
Like the other chapters of this book, this one is more negative than positive; but if it results in interpreters who are marginally more self–critical in their handling of Scripture, and in readers who are somewhat more discerning when they devour commentaries, expositions, and other studies, this sustained critique will be amply rewarded (p. 123).
