What do you think?
Rate this book
The Amazing Dr. Ransom's Bestiary of Adorable Fallacies: A Field Guide for Clear Thinkers
Watch out: There's an epidemic of kind-hearted people adopting the adorable yet treacherous creatures known as informal fallacies. So, we've compiled this FIELD GUIDE FOR CLEAR THINKERS to make sure you, dear reader, can identify and exterminate fifty of the most fluffy and most venomous adorable fallacies. Inside you'll find inventive illustrations, clear descriptions, helpful exercises, semester- & year-long schedules, and all the clever analysis a person might need to steer clear of all the little fallacies.
The fifty informal fallacies are divided into four groups: fallacies of distraction, fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of form, and millennial fallacies. Each is described as an adorable but deadly creature one might encounter in the wild, complete with illustration and a fantastical description as a memory aid.
Perfect for beginning logic students. Matchless as a supplement to any established high-school or college logic curriculum. Ideal for pastors or parents, or anyone else in our age of nonsense who wants to apply logic to real life (or the Internet).
The fifty informal fallacies are divided into four groups: fallacies of distraction, fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of form, and millennial fallacies. Each is described as an adorable but deadly creature one might encounter in the wild, complete with illustration and a fantastical description as a memory aid.
Perfect for beginning logic students. Matchless as a supplement to any established high-school or college logic curriculum. Ideal for pastors or parents, or anyone else in our age of nonsense who wants to apply logic to real life (or the Internet).
320 pages, Paperback
First published July 21, 2015
357 people are currently reading
645 people want to read
About the author
Douglas Wilson
319 books4,566 followersI write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
February 2, 2024
Overall this is a nice book to have on your shelf, especially if you're a Christian classical homeschooler and you want your kids to understand logic. However, if you're only going to pick one or two books for logic for your homeschooler, the Bluedorn brothers' books Fallacy Detective and Thinking Toolbox are much better. Here's why:
1. Bluedorns are more concise. Both books have interesting writing style and are humorous. I suppose in certain senses, you might say they're similar in writing style. But the Bluedorns don't have as much clutter in their books. Their supplementary examples of dialogue or cartoons are necessary or helpful. Wilsons' chapters are cluttered up with "Dr. Ransom's travel anecdotes" and lengthy, sometimes silly, explanations of made-up creatures. While at first I thought it was a neat idea, and the illustrations are funny and whimsical, over time, we bored of all the little made-up creatures. In fact, I thought it wouldn't be helpful to remember the different fallacies. It's just 50-something more things to memorize for the flashcards.
2. Bluedorns are clearer. I got frustrated with the Wilsons early on, because I REALLY want to get better at logic, and their writing confused me at times! For example, each fallacy is illustrated, both with pictures and stories, with a little made-up monster that (somewhat?) acts out the fallacy. There is a picture of the monster with the name of the fallacy underneath, with a description (definition) of the fallacy. That's helpful. Then underneath that definition is a list of "alternate" names. I got frustrated when sometimes the fallacy names were clearly made up to fit the little made-up beast, but on occasion they would choose that made-up name as the main name of the fallacy, or as the alternate name. I don't mind if they want to make up names, but I'd appreciate it if they'd use the most common name of the fallacy as its main term, and if they want to include their own made-up name as an alternate, PLEASE make it clear that this is not an "official" name. On occasion the Wilsons were so busy being cute, clever, and creative in their writing that I honestly didn't even understand the joke or point they were making. Perhaps they were assuming that their readership is so clued up on their other writings that we would be able to make connections. I could most of the time, but not all, and that's not good writing.
3. Bluedorns were more credible. My husband and I have often commented that the elder Wilson is better at rhetoric than logic. Many times he is logical, and I'll bet he knows a lot more than I. But in his blog posts, he will assume or assert a position rather than prove it logically. His writing is powerful and persuasive (and certainly not PC, which doesn't bother me), but it can be distracting, and even lose his audience when he sometimes overstates his case or overplays his hand or distances readers by offending even those who want to like him. His descriptions of the little animals or his reactions to them were over-the-top at times.
For example of uncomfortable material (I wasn't really offended...), I felt that some of his subject matter, which would show up repeatedly in either his lesson or the practice exercises afterwards, was inappropriate for either youth (the age for whom this was written) or adults who are trying to live a holy lifestyle. There are jokes (granted, critical) about immorality; several comments about homosexuality, several about women in ministry, and numerous about drinking. I could overlook the middle two, since I agree with him, even though I wish he wouldn't emphasize the kind of thing he's always fighting on his blog with high schoolers, but hey. Whatever. But here's an example of the beginning and ending of Fallacy no. 34: Bifurcation:
It starts: "On one of my explorations in the southern tip of Mexico, I came upon a small outpost that had one seedy tavern. Upon entering that tavern, for my thirst was approaching significant levels, I asked the man behind the plank--stretched between two barrels--what my choices were. He said that I had two choices. What were they? I inquired. He said that I could have whiskey or air...."
and ends: "Oh, and in that Mexican saloon, I ordered tequila. I had to pull the bottle out of a GB myself, but I got the job done."
That just isn't funny, especially to a missionary who's seeing alcohol ruining the lives of people. It doesn't sound like Spurgeon. It's not a holy mindset. If they want to hold to Christians drinking, why can't they keep it out of a 7th-12th graders' textbook on logic? Why alienate part of your audience? This damages their ethos when it comes to other assertions they want to make. I can't remember the specific example now, but a few times, my husband and I disagreed with their answer key or whether or not something was a logical fallacy, because it had to do with a theological belief or practice (not a fundamental doctrine, but tangential) that the Wilsons hold to and assume others will agree with them on. So they point out logical fallacies in the opposing side with a quick one- or two-liner. The thing is, that we thought they were the ones with the logical errors. So that also damaged their credibility. They should have stuck with the best examples.
So clarity, concision, and credibility--the writing style would get marked down for those reasons. However, still in general, it's a nice book to have on your shelf and supplement your logic curriculum. It's just not the book to pick if it'll be your ONLY logic curriculum.
1. Bluedorns are more concise. Both books have interesting writing style and are humorous. I suppose in certain senses, you might say they're similar in writing style. But the Bluedorns don't have as much clutter in their books. Their supplementary examples of dialogue or cartoons are necessary or helpful. Wilsons' chapters are cluttered up with "Dr. Ransom's travel anecdotes" and lengthy, sometimes silly, explanations of made-up creatures. While at first I thought it was a neat idea, and the illustrations are funny and whimsical, over time, we bored of all the little made-up creatures. In fact, I thought it wouldn't be helpful to remember the different fallacies. It's just 50-something more things to memorize for the flashcards.
2. Bluedorns are clearer. I got frustrated with the Wilsons early on, because I REALLY want to get better at logic, and their writing confused me at times! For example, each fallacy is illustrated, both with pictures and stories, with a little made-up monster that (somewhat?) acts out the fallacy. There is a picture of the monster with the name of the fallacy underneath, with a description (definition) of the fallacy. That's helpful. Then underneath that definition is a list of "alternate" names. I got frustrated when sometimes the fallacy names were clearly made up to fit the little made-up beast, but on occasion they would choose that made-up name as the main name of the fallacy, or as the alternate name. I don't mind if they want to make up names, but I'd appreciate it if they'd use the most common name of the fallacy as its main term, and if they want to include their own made-up name as an alternate, PLEASE make it clear that this is not an "official" name. On occasion the Wilsons were so busy being cute, clever, and creative in their writing that I honestly didn't even understand the joke or point they were making. Perhaps they were assuming that their readership is so clued up on their other writings that we would be able to make connections. I could most of the time, but not all, and that's not good writing.
3. Bluedorns were more credible. My husband and I have often commented that the elder Wilson is better at rhetoric than logic. Many times he is logical, and I'll bet he knows a lot more than I. But in his blog posts, he will assume or assert a position rather than prove it logically. His writing is powerful and persuasive (and certainly not PC, which doesn't bother me), but it can be distracting, and even lose his audience when he sometimes overstates his case or overplays his hand or distances readers by offending even those who want to like him. His descriptions of the little animals or his reactions to them were over-the-top at times.
For example of uncomfortable material (I wasn't really offended...), I felt that some of his subject matter, which would show up repeatedly in either his lesson or the practice exercises afterwards, was inappropriate for either youth (the age for whom this was written) or adults who are trying to live a holy lifestyle. There are jokes (granted, critical) about immorality; several comments about homosexuality, several about women in ministry, and numerous about drinking. I could overlook the middle two, since I agree with him, even though I wish he wouldn't emphasize the kind of thing he's always fighting on his blog with high schoolers, but hey. Whatever. But here's an example of the beginning and ending of Fallacy no. 34: Bifurcation:
It starts: "On one of my explorations in the southern tip of Mexico, I came upon a small outpost that had one seedy tavern. Upon entering that tavern, for my thirst was approaching significant levels, I asked the man behind the plank--stretched between two barrels--what my choices were. He said that I had two choices. What were they? I inquired. He said that I could have whiskey or air...."
and ends: "Oh, and in that Mexican saloon, I ordered tequila. I had to pull the bottle out of a GB myself, but I got the job done."
That just isn't funny, especially to a missionary who's seeing alcohol ruining the lives of people. It doesn't sound like Spurgeon. It's not a holy mindset. If they want to hold to Christians drinking, why can't they keep it out of a 7th-12th graders' textbook on logic? Why alienate part of your audience? This damages their ethos when it comes to other assertions they want to make. I can't remember the specific example now, but a few times, my husband and I disagreed with their answer key or whether or not something was a logical fallacy, because it had to do with a theological belief or practice (not a fundamental doctrine, but tangential) that the Wilsons hold to and assume others will agree with them on. So they point out logical fallacies in the opposing side with a quick one- or two-liner. The thing is, that we thought they were the ones with the logical errors. So that also damaged their credibility. They should have stuck with the best examples.
So clarity, concision, and credibility--the writing style would get marked down for those reasons. However, still in general, it's a nice book to have on your shelf and supplement your logic curriculum. It's just not the book to pick if it'll be your ONLY logic curriculum.
October 11, 2025
Incredibly enlightening, adorably terrifying, and treacherously sweet, this book compiles everything you need to know about fallacies in one place. Will probably read annually.
August 13, 2015
This is hands down the best logical fallacies book I have read yet. The book not only gives the reader a thorough grasp of what exactly the particular logical fallacy is but does so in a humorous and very relevant manner.
My 8 year old son was flipping through it the day it came in the mail and he was rollicking on the floor in laughter at the pictures. The pictures are very well done I must add. This is without a doubt the textbook to use when teaching logical fallacies, it even has a section dedicated particularly to fallacies that millennials are prone to commit.
My 8 year old son was flipping through it the day it came in the mail and he was rollicking on the floor in laughter at the pictures. The pictures are very well done I must add. This is without a doubt the textbook to use when teaching logical fallacies, it even has a section dedicated particularly to fallacies that millennials are prone to commit.
June 21, 2018
I really enjoyed this. It's got bite to it, and Forrest Dickison's illustrations are great. However, the way the book is written sometimes obscures the precise meanings of the fallacies. Also, there are lots of controversial examples (not necessarily a bad thing) with little or no explanation in the answer key (which is unfortunate).
Overall I still prefer The Fallacy Detective by the Bluedorns as an introduction to informal fallacies, but this book would be helpful for a student to read on his own afterward for fun and profit.
Overall I still prefer The Fallacy Detective by the Bluedorns as an introduction to informal fallacies, but this book would be helpful for a student to read on his own afterward for fun and profit.
February 25, 2016
Most fun book on informal fallacies that I've read.
January 12, 2021
While the drawings are quite adorable and enjoyable for all ages the content is not. The book does mention substance abuse and criminal activity throughout its examples. Nothing too inappropriate and all from a christian standpoint, but I highly recommend saving it for high school level and beyond.
September 2, 2023
Very fun.
December 4, 2025
Really fun read! Definitely on the silly side, but still very educational. Would be great to go through with kids as a fun way to learn about logic and rhetoric.
September 19, 2025
Fun and extremely useful book. Get it and read it and stop falling for fallacies.
March 17, 2024
I picked this up expecting simple introductions and explanations for everyday fallacies, with these fallacies being represented as different fictional creatures to put a unique spin on things. By the end of this book it just feels like a manifesto of the author's personal beliefs, giving himself an excuse to shoehorn his opinions into a shallow analysis of each fallacy presented under a fictional character. I shouldn't really be saying "his" opinions, since as he states throughout the book, he is very hard-set on staying true to the Bible. This isn't the issue here, as I'm sure he is a man of good faith, but this ends up hogging the spotlight for most of book. There was nothing indicating this was going to be targeting a religious audience beforehand, which once again is not an issue, as long as the book does good at what the reader came here to do.
Each fallacy starts off with a made-up anecdote of the "author" (Dr. Ransom) (Sorry I mean The Amazing Dr. Ransom) going on one of his many journeys as an explorer throughout the world. Sometimes a good definition of the current fallacy is given beforehand. Most of the time he ends up in a confrontation with one of the people around him, in which they engage in an unrealistic representation of the current fallacy (Dr. Ransom always being the smart and all-knowing guy here). After all is said and done, sure enough he spots the creature in question out of the corner of his eye somewhere, which has been negatively influencing the victim the entire time. Even if the story itself may not give you a good example of a real-life discussion scenario, it's the exercises afterward that you rely on to truly understand it. Not only are many of these examples also unrealistic and black-and-white, but this is where all of the thoughts on religious arguments, abortion, evolution, global warming, gay people, women, marriage, israelites, etc get stuffed in. Honestly I don't really care about any of these claims personally, but it becomes so predictable over time that I don't even attribute them to a fallacy beforehand anymore as I should be. I turn the page and think "I wonder which immature atheist or creationist is going to be getting on his nerves this time..." A lot of these examples sound like watered-down comic-strip representations of who the author is dedicated to being against, and expects you to be too. It's fine to have opinions, but for a work attempting to keep people grounded in the facts, it's not very convincing without being able to critique yourself (even if your beliefs are stated in text and therefore should be "written in stone" for everybody else.) These exercises have you identifying the fallacy of the given sentence, with most answers being the fallacy from that section, and some being a previous one or "none". As time goes on it gets more and more predictable. For example, right in the beginning for the fallacy Ad Hominem, one exercise question is "Nietzsche’s poisonous dismissal of weakness and advocacy for the “Superman” are refuted by his own pitiable existence and death. And by his twerpy mustache." Of course the answer here was "none (even the mustache part)", which is in good humor and even committing the fallacy itself, but stuff like this keeps happening for more serious topics throughout the book and that occasional "none" becomes frequently expected. The creature gimmick got old as well.
The final section of this book is filled with the author's personal made-up definitions for fallacies he has assigned as the "millennial fallacies", which basically boil down to "young people are weak and sensitive" and all the other complaints people hear from "boomers" (committing Chronological Snobbery fallacy here...) The concepts are nothing you haven't heard before, besides maybe Ad Imperium, which is people relying on the government to bring about change (you can give food to the poor instead of the government establishing a committee for it.)
All in all I did learn some new things. I give credit to the book for giving me words to look up better definitions for. I didn't sign up to be preached to though, and this came off very condescending, no Shamstering fallacy intended.
Each fallacy starts off with a made-up anecdote of the "author" (Dr. Ransom) (Sorry I mean The Amazing Dr. Ransom) going on one of his many journeys as an explorer throughout the world. Sometimes a good definition of the current fallacy is given beforehand. Most of the time he ends up in a confrontation with one of the people around him, in which they engage in an unrealistic representation of the current fallacy (Dr. Ransom always being the smart and all-knowing guy here). After all is said and done, sure enough he spots the creature in question out of the corner of his eye somewhere, which has been negatively influencing the victim the entire time. Even if the story itself may not give you a good example of a real-life discussion scenario, it's the exercises afterward that you rely on to truly understand it. Not only are many of these examples also unrealistic and black-and-white, but this is where all of the thoughts on religious arguments, abortion, evolution, global warming, gay people, women, marriage, israelites, etc get stuffed in. Honestly I don't really care about any of these claims personally, but it becomes so predictable over time that I don't even attribute them to a fallacy beforehand anymore as I should be. I turn the page and think "I wonder which immature atheist or creationist is going to be getting on his nerves this time..." A lot of these examples sound like watered-down comic-strip representations of who the author is dedicated to being against, and expects you to be too. It's fine to have opinions, but for a work attempting to keep people grounded in the facts, it's not very convincing without being able to critique yourself (even if your beliefs are stated in text and therefore should be "written in stone" for everybody else.) These exercises have you identifying the fallacy of the given sentence, with most answers being the fallacy from that section, and some being a previous one or "none". As time goes on it gets more and more predictable. For example, right in the beginning for the fallacy Ad Hominem, one exercise question is "Nietzsche’s poisonous dismissal of weakness and advocacy for the “Superman” are refuted by his own pitiable existence and death. And by his twerpy mustache." Of course the answer here was "none (even the mustache part)", which is in good humor and even committing the fallacy itself, but stuff like this keeps happening for more serious topics throughout the book and that occasional "none" becomes frequently expected. The creature gimmick got old as well.
The final section of this book is filled with the author's personal made-up definitions for fallacies he has assigned as the "millennial fallacies", which basically boil down to "young people are weak and sensitive" and all the other complaints people hear from "boomers" (committing Chronological Snobbery fallacy here...) The concepts are nothing you haven't heard before, besides maybe Ad Imperium, which is people relying on the government to bring about change (you can give food to the poor instead of the government establishing a committee for it.)
All in all I did learn some new things. I give credit to the book for giving me words to look up better definitions for. I didn't sign up to be preached to though, and this came off very condescending, no Shamstering fallacy intended.
January 8, 2026
We’re pretty settled into a Charlotte Mason education but I’ve been dipping into learning more about classical as well and am interested in mixing in some things that I would like our kids to have in their arsenal of knowledge with the way our culture is heading. Logic was a big one and this book has a mason feel with its way of making the learning of logic into a story of an explorer finding versions of fallacies described as animals and experiences. *Almost* like if Burgess wrote a book on it. He references various authors and literature through it which I enjoyed (like Austen/Kipling) and shows how reading these authors helps with coming face to face with these fallacies. There’s discussion prompts and questions at the end of each chapter which makes it a great family learning tool and a schedule for semester or year long in the book.
Overall we’ll add this into our curriculum for early high school as our children step more and more into facing these fallacies on their own.
I read a few reviews that lowered their stars because of Wilson’s writing on homosexuality/abortion/women in ministry. If you disagree with what the Bible says on these topics then yes you’ll disagree with and be offended by the book. Our culture is more and more wanting to live by opinions and feelings and we need to be honest with ourselves that we are not more loving or just than God.
Overall we’ll add this into our curriculum for early high school as our children step more and more into facing these fallacies on their own.
I read a few reviews that lowered their stars because of Wilson’s writing on homosexuality/abortion/women in ministry. If you disagree with what the Bible says on these topics then yes you’ll disagree with and be offended by the book. Our culture is more and more wanting to live by opinions and feelings and we need to be honest with ourselves that we are not more loving or just than God.
April 9, 2024
On the plus side of good. The Wilson duo provide 50 different logical fallacies with several examples. Each fallacy ends with some scenarios to test your understanding. However, I didn’t appreciate in one of those scenarios the unnecessary ear-flicking of West Virginians as the stereotypical stupid redneck - seemed like an Ad Hominem!
April 25, 2018
Really great. Might be one of the best things Canon publishes. It blows "Fallacy Detective" out of the water in the examples and application as well as the amount of fallacies considered. The Illustrator didn't do half bad, either.
May 8, 2025
Sadly disappointed by this book. I thought it would be a fun, creative way to strengthen my understanding of logical fallacies, but after a while the 'adorable creatures' and acerbic humor felt gimmicky and absurd. I tried skimming through the more imaginative portions, but was left with little actual information about each fallacy. Sure, there were a handful of examples for each - but the book simply stated THAT they were wrong, not WHY they were wrong - and a few fanciful definitions, but not much of substance. It lacked clarity on how certain similar fallacies were distinct from each other, and lacked tips for consistently spotting the actual fallacy (not the fictional creature) in the wild. Even still, I would have given this 3.5 stars ... until I started the final section of the book, Millennial Fallacies. It felt more like a personal tirade against 'young people these days' then a rational continuation of the theme, and included several entries (such as milquetoast or zeitgeist) that refer more to attitudes or feelings than actual logical fallacies.
While I have a slightly better familiarity with some fallacies, this book did little to strengthen my understanding overall. Would not recommend.
While I have a slightly better familiarity with some fallacies, this book did little to strengthen my understanding overall. Would not recommend.
July 20, 2015
I've spent much time in the depths of a couple of formal logic books, and verily they doth hurt my head. They are, to be sure, fine volumes, but...
Have I ever told you about the time I had a crush on a particularly left-brained guy, so I decided to do something particularly left-brained myself by way of deepening some sense of connection with him, and I dug out a book of logic puzzles, and I picked one, and I spent half an hour solving it, and the answer was Bertram? Well, if I hadn't before, I have now. Bertram. I never again wish to spend that much effort only to get nothing more than a Bertram out of it (though I might make an exception for this one).
I am glad there are people in the world whose minds enjoy formal logic, and I am not the least bit sad that I am not one of them. I'm not even sad that my old crush married another girl.
This, this, however, is a logic book for the right-brained, the intuitive, the dwellers in Bertram-free zones. It has stories! It has pictures! It has lolz! The only drawback to this book is that it's in print (or will be in a few days...hurry and preorder your copy now while you can still get 20% off with discount code adorbs!), when it would be supremely useful as an online gallery à la the legendary Flame Warriors. That would make it so much easier not only to identify the adorable fallacies in the field, but to skewer each specimen with a pin and apply a neat label.
With Dr. Ransom's field guide in hand, and a foray into the average Internet comment section, you should have a complete life list in no time. It's designed as a textbook for high school students (including discussion questions, exercises, and downloadable tests and quizzes), and I dare say the world would be a better place if more persons of such tender years would study the topic, but as a solidly middle-aged adult, I can highly commend this jolly volume to grown-ups, as well.
Disclaimer: I had the privilege of working on this book, so I was paid to read it, but I promise that the bulk of the profit I received thereby was not of the monetary sort!
Have I ever told you about the time I had a crush on a particularly left-brained guy, so I decided to do something particularly left-brained myself by way of deepening some sense of connection with him, and I dug out a book of logic puzzles, and I picked one, and I spent half an hour solving it, and the answer was Bertram? Well, if I hadn't before, I have now. Bertram. I never again wish to spend that much effort only to get nothing more than a Bertram out of it (though I might make an exception for this one).
I am glad there are people in the world whose minds enjoy formal logic, and I am not the least bit sad that I am not one of them. I'm not even sad that my old crush married another girl.
This, this, however, is a logic book for the right-brained, the intuitive, the dwellers in Bertram-free zones. It has stories! It has pictures! It has lolz! The only drawback to this book is that it's in print (or will be in a few days...hurry and preorder your copy now while you can still get 20% off with discount code adorbs!), when it would be supremely useful as an online gallery à la the legendary Flame Warriors. That would make it so much easier not only to identify the adorable fallacies in the field, but to skewer each specimen with a pin and apply a neat label.
With Dr. Ransom's field guide in hand, and a foray into the average Internet comment section, you should have a complete life list in no time. It's designed as a textbook for high school students (including discussion questions, exercises, and downloadable tests and quizzes), and I dare say the world would be a better place if more persons of such tender years would study the topic, but as a solidly middle-aged adult, I can highly commend this jolly volume to grown-ups, as well.
Disclaimer: I had the privilege of working on this book, so I was paid to read it, but I promise that the bulk of the profit I received thereby was not of the monetary sort!
March 21, 2022
The Bible say we should remove the beam from our own eye before we try to remove the mote from our brother’s eye. The authors commit numerous fallacies in their analysis of example fallacies because their preconceptions prevent them from performing an unbiased analysis. One example is their handling of C.S. Lewis’ famous trilemma, that Jesus was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or our Lord. They say that the argument is sound. They are wrong. Myriads of books have been written finding that Jesus was any number of things other than one of those three choices. For example, a magician, an apocalyptic prophet, a cynic sage, a revolutionary Zealot, a Pharisee, an Essence, etc., etc. This demonstrates conclusively that Lewis has committed the fallacy of bifurcation, better known as false dichotomy, by limiting our choices to Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.
October 3, 2024
4.5 stars
Really clever and witty; a great introduction to logical fallacies. I may use it with my 5th/6th graders.
Really clever and witty; a great introduction to logical fallacies. I may use it with my 5th/6th graders.
April 24, 2017
While the explanation of the fallacies were interesting the snark and condescension of the narrator made the book difficult to enjoy.
August 17, 2024
Dr. Ransom's Bestiary of Adorable Fallacies is a book that I think is designed to teach young people about fallacious ways of arguing. It does so with attempts at humor and descriptions of various creatures that addle individuals into having odd ways of arguing. I don't think much of the book and I'll briefly list a couple of reasons why.
1. The book isn't clear. That is, many of the fallacies seem to overlap and the examples don't always seem that different from each other. I'm not clueless when it comes to these sorts of things, but it seems like there are general similarities in some of these fallacies that make them basically indistinguishable. Perhaps it would have been better to cut down on the number of beasts to create clearer demarcation between them.
2. The humor isn't funny. Dr. Ransom is supposed to be some sort of cross between Indiana Jones, Alan Quartermain and the Absent Minded Professor. I think that he is supposed to come across as dryly witty, but I didn't find his stories or banter amusing at all. Suffice to say, if you don't find this sort of humor amusing, the book will wear on you long before your reach the one third mark.
3. Dead horses don't need whipping. The Wilsons spend a lot of time discussing specific things that bother them that apparently, other people believe and prop up with false arguments. These include their opposition to gay marriage, abortion, women in the clergy, and capital punishment. I'm not sure about the benefit of bringing up the same examples at the end of each chapter. I'm guessing that these are simply the chosen whipping boys of the Wilsons and so they come up frequently. I don't know that I actually differ from their views on things, but I simply didn't find it interesting to bring up so frequently.
More than that, people who agree with them already agree with them, but those who don't will likely be put off by the snarky presentation.
I haven't read any better book discussing fallacious arguing, but I wouldn't recommend this one -- not unless you have a significantly different sense of humor than I have.
1. The book isn't clear. That is, many of the fallacies seem to overlap and the examples don't always seem that different from each other. I'm not clueless when it comes to these sorts of things, but it seems like there are general similarities in some of these fallacies that make them basically indistinguishable. Perhaps it would have been better to cut down on the number of beasts to create clearer demarcation between them.
2. The humor isn't funny. Dr. Ransom is supposed to be some sort of cross between Indiana Jones, Alan Quartermain and the Absent Minded Professor. I think that he is supposed to come across as dryly witty, but I didn't find his stories or banter amusing at all. Suffice to say, if you don't find this sort of humor amusing, the book will wear on you long before your reach the one third mark.
3. Dead horses don't need whipping. The Wilsons spend a lot of time discussing specific things that bother them that apparently, other people believe and prop up with false arguments. These include their opposition to gay marriage, abortion, women in the clergy, and capital punishment. I'm not sure about the benefit of bringing up the same examples at the end of each chapter. I'm guessing that these are simply the chosen whipping boys of the Wilsons and so they come up frequently. I don't know that I actually differ from their views on things, but I simply didn't find it interesting to bring up so frequently.
More than that, people who agree with them already agree with them, but those who don't will likely be put off by the snarky presentation.
I haven't read any better book discussing fallacious arguing, but I wouldn't recommend this one -- not unless you have a significantly different sense of humor than I have.
April 21, 2025
Used this as a class for 5-7th graders. I know 5th is a little younger than the intended audience but if you're going to take the time to teach it to your 7th grader, you might as well put your younger kid through it to if they're even close to ready to save yourself from having to teach it again in the near future (plus it makes it more fun for both if it is a part of a class). Overall it was fun and engaging. I do think there were too many inside jokes/slightly obscure references. It would definitely be easier to teach to a slightly older audience. I oftentimes had to re-explain the fallacy in my own words because there wasn't always a super to-the-point basic explanation. We also wrapped up our class about 8 fallacies shy of the ending because we got the stomach bug too many times throughout the year to make it all the way through.
April 27, 2023
This book started out to be really fun. The illustrations are THE.BEST. - sample questions in the back are mostly helpful. While a good initial intro, we'll be doing something like the Fallacy Detective over the summer for a boost. LogosPress recommended this in their 7th grade bundle, and I would have to say I would push this for a high school level reference book. Some of the scenarios did not make sense to my kiddos, so there was extra explaining to do, which is fine.
So, while we enjoyed it (I probably more so, though I quibbled with a few examples, because I understood the context of the examples better), unfortunately it's not one that I would say "Yes! Highly recommend!" when it comes to introducing Logic.
So, while we enjoyed it (I probably more so, though I quibbled with a few examples, because I understood the context of the examples better), unfortunately it's not one that I would say "Yes! Highly recommend!" when it comes to introducing Logic.
September 22, 2025
Second time reading. Doing it with my oldest, and enjoying it even more.
Old review: This was really quite enjoyable. It won't replace a formal study of logic, even at an introductory level, but it does make for a genuinely entertaining book on how to think clearly in this age of madness.
The book is specifically aimed at young people, and should help bolster them against all the trendy conscience nonsense that they are expected to embrace if they want to be 'good people'.
Liked it a lot.
Old review: This was really quite enjoyable. It won't replace a formal study of logic, even at an introductory level, but it does make for a genuinely entertaining book on how to think clearly in this age of madness.
The book is specifically aimed at young people, and should help bolster them against all the trendy conscience nonsense that they are expected to embrace if they want to be 'good people'.
Liked it a lot.
June 4, 2022
This is a logic and reasoning book mixed with Pembrick's Creaturepedia. Each fallacy is correlated to a whimsical creature. Most of them are quite fun. Plus, as a fan of the Ransom trilogy, I loved that these were Dr. Ransom's studies. Jack would be proud. Do know that this reads more as a textbook. That isn't a negative. Just be aware of it. The final section on millennial fallacies was good to the point I wanted to be sick. Recommended reading for sure.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 31, 2025
This book started out strong. It's engaging to learn about the fallacies through the imagined use of different creatures and the Indiana Jones like adventure narrative. However, as the book went on, I found the adherence to the narrative and creatures more forced and kind of a hindrance to true understanding. They obscured the real purpose of the book, especially in the section on millenial fallacies.
December 5, 2018
Wonderful introduction to informal and formal fallacies. The authors/illustrators do a great job of using the AF (Adorable Fallacies) to aid the memory. The descriptions and illustrations are quite funny at times.
I also appreciated the "Millennial fallacies" at the end of the book. These fallacies (such as "Cool shaming") are based on a blend of other fallacies and are helpful in 2018.
I also appreciated the "Millennial fallacies" at the end of the book. These fallacies (such as "Cool shaming") are based on a blend of other fallacies and are helpful in 2018.
September 24, 2019
This is precisely what young brains need to read in a society and public school system that is in the business of brain-mushing. Creative, fun, and brilliant. Most of what is taught in schools today are based on logical fallacies. This is as needed a book as ever in the educational world with emphatic real life implications.
November 9, 2020
Unsatisfactory as a textbook, this volume provides descriptions of various logical fallacies in an acerbic and occasionally humorous tone. It simultaneously fails to provide robust information about the content and offers examples that depend on the reader's understanding of outside content and an understanding of the authors' fundamentalist Christian worldview.
May 23, 2021
Has a lot of promise, but...
The idea is great and the writing and stories are quite imaginative and good, at least in the beginning. What I do not like is how preachy it gets the more you go on, and not as objective as I would like. For a book on logical fallacies, there is a lot of personal opinion in it, and that is unfortunate.
The idea is great and the writing and stories are quite imaginative and good, at least in the beginning. What I do not like is how preachy it gets the more you go on, and not as objective as I would like. For a book on logical fallacies, there is a lot of personal opinion in it, and that is unfortunate.
April 27, 2019
A thoroughly enjoyable and creative method for learning logical fallacies. Made me realize how much of politics is people doing these bad things well. Wilson’s wit and hypothetical example felt too real.
December 13, 2023
Read this with my daughter. She's not yet 2, so it was more for my benefit! Though I hope she'll read it when she gets older. Funny, witty, and educational - definitely helpful to know some of the fallacious reasoning that others can use (and that I myself can fall into).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews