Did you mean "Monty Python witch trial"? Here is a note on that topic: The Monty Python witch trial sketch is one of the most iconic and popular sketches from the British comedy group Monty Python. The sketch is set in the Middle Ages and depicts a trial of a woman accused of being a witch. The sketch begins with a group of villagers bringing a woman, played by Terry Jones, to a trial. The trial is presided over by a pompous judge, played by Graham Chapman, who asks the accused witch several questions to determine her guilt. However, the questions and the proceedings quickly devolve into absurdity and hilarity. The judge asks ridiculous questions such as "What floats in water?", "What else floats in water?", and "What do you burn apart from witches?".
But even taking this silly argument seriously, proving that the accused is wood does NOT demonstrate logically that she is a witch. This is a False Cause, for being wood is not necessarily the result of being a witch; otherwise, wooden bridges and all wooden things would be constructed of witches. In other words, a witch may be wood, but not all wood comes from witches. So even if the accused turns out to be wood, that might be the result of a cause quite different from what the villagers allege. In other words, demonstrating that something is wood does not prove a “witchy” origin. It simply suggests a woody one.
We are introduced to King Arthur Graham Chapman pretending to ride a horse through the English countryside, with his trusty valet Patsy Terry Gilliam following along as a private Foley studio creating the clatter of hooves with two halves of a coconut. Drawing out answers from the villagers, the Lord of the Manor establishes that if the accused equates to a duck, then that equates to being wood, which equates to being a witch.
The judge asks ridiculous questions such as "What floats in water?", "What else floats in water?", and "What do you burn apart from witches?". The accused witch, trying to defend herself, gives equally absurd and nonsensical answers. The sketch also features the famous line "She turned me into a newt!", which is repeated multiple times by different characters.
INDY RE-ENTRY FOCUS
Mistakes in reasoning are common in everyday life. From politics to commercials to serious business discussions, logical fallacies arise to derail our thinking and smash our arguments. But we often jump willingly to our conclusions. We don’t recognize our reasoning mistakes, and that’s a pity. So here is something that you can use, while Monty Python entertains.
To help you keep your own reasoning on track, here is a wonderful video clip from Monty Python and the Holy Grail that illustrates at least four rather nasty but common logical fallacies: name-calling, undistributed middle term, false cause, and false authority. My explanations below will elaborate on the video’s fallacies so that you may follow the action and understand why others jump to conclusions. Your mission? That’s simple. Don’t follow the video’s example in your own life—where it really matters!
Fallacy 1: Name Calling (the Personal Attack)
Villagers bring to the Lord of the Manor (the knight who owns the land) a woman they believe to be a witch. To make her appear guilty, they dress her as a witch, even adding to her face a crooked carrot to simulate a deformed nose. The Lord of the Manor asks the villagers how they know that she is a witch. They point to her appearance, but they are forced to admit that they dressed her to look that way. To recover from this failed attempt, one villager claims that she turned him into a newt. Since he obviously isn’t a lizard now, the villager claims, with some embarrassment, that he simply got better.
These all qualify under the heading of the Fallacy of Name Calling (ad Hominem: to the man), a fallacy that attempts to undermine what another claims or argues by discrediting that person’s character or motives, typically by attributing charges of wrongdoing, immoral behavior, or untrustworthiness. This is a fallacy because a person’s character or motives are irrelevant to the truth of his or her statements. Even if a person has a reason to lie, the truth of what he or she says depends upon whether or not the statements accurately describe the real world, not the person’s virtue or lack of it. Even the most virtuous can have lousy observation skills or misinterpret what’s before them. The truth of a statement, what logicians call soundness, depends upon accuracy, not morality.
Fallacy 2: Undistributed Middle Term (Cf., Equivocation and False Analogy)
As the villagers push the accused before the Lord of the Manor, we get a lesson in faulty class inclusion. Proper class inclusion assumes that if one group is included in another, then the members of both will necessarily share common characteristics. We expect that because the included group is simply a subdivision within the same class. The shared characteristics are “universally distributed” within the class, so all members of any included class must also have them. That’s what logicians mean by a “distributed middle term.” For example, look at this logically valid argument:
“Reptiles are cold-blooded animals. This snake is a reptile. Consequently, it is a cold-blooded animal.” (Reptiles constitute a class characterized by being cold-blooded. The snake is included as a subclass of this larger class. Consequently, we logically conclude that it has the same characteristic)
The Fallacy of an Undistributed Middle Term occurs when the items we compare are not members of the same class but merely seem to share an incidental characteristic. The logical mistake occurs when the two classes are equated on the basis of the incidental, common characteristic. This is equivocal. For example, both rams and bulls have horns, but these animals belong to different classes. The horns are only an incidental similarity. Equating the two classes of animals would be a mistake. Though they both have horns, this fact does not put them in the same class, any more than a car and a horse sharing the same color could be classified as the same things. In fact, the horns of these two animals are not really the same, just similar. The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term makes a shared, similar feature the illicit basis for equating two different classes of things. Like this:
“Rams have horns. Bulls have horns. Consequently, Rams are Bulls.”
Watch what happens as the Lord of the Manor tells the villagers that there are ways to determine if the accused is a witch. He explains that witches burn (a characteristic). Why do they burn? Well, wood also burns (the same characteristic), so witches are made of wood (that equates two classes of different items on the basis of an incidental but shared characteristic). This is the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term. Following this form of reasoning would allow us to easily lose our way logically. (For example, Mr. Smith has two feet; Mrs. Smith has two feet. Consequently, Mr. Smith is Mrs. Smith).
Now what the duck’s weight has to do with it is anyone’s guess. Of course, this is an example of the same fallacy. Two different things may have the same weight, but that shared quality does not make them the same. Take a survey. What would people prefer: a pound of duck feathers or a pound of gold? If someone tells you that the two are the same, don’t go into business with that person. You’ll be sorry.
The Undistributed Middle Term can deflect any reasoning into pure silliness.
Fallacy 3: False Cause
In fact, this is what happens in the video. Wood floats, the Lord of the Manor says. He then asks what else floats? King Arthur, who has been observing in the background, confidently answers that it is a duck. The Lord of the Manor affirms that answer as the correct one. What does this mean? Drawing out answers from the villagers, the Lord of the Manor establishes that if the accused equates to a duck, then that equates to being wood, which equates to being a witch. This reasoning, however, is an example of the False Cause fallacy (Post Hoc, Ergo Proctor Hoc: after this, therefore because of this).
Why? Even if we take the humorous argument seriously, not all wooden items are witches. In fact, the Lord of the Manor says this explicitly, “And what do you burn other than witches.” The answer? “Wood,” says one of the villagers, to the Lord of the Manor’s approval. The video also admits that some bridges are made of wood, without directing the villagers to burn all wooden bridges on the charge of witchcraft. Clearly, the Lord of the Manor and the villagers know that not all wood comes from witches. Consequently, what the Lord of the Manor must be claiming is that when one becomes a witch, that “witchy” quality turns the person into wood.
But even taking this silly argument seriously, proving that the accused is wood does NOT demonstrate logically that she is a witch. This is a False Cause, for being wood is not necessarily the result of being a witch; otherwise, wooden bridges and all wooden things would be constructed of witches. In other words, a witch may be wood, but not all wood comes from witches. So even if the accused turns out to be wood, that might be the result of a cause quite different from what the villagers allege. In other words, demonstrating that something is wood does not prove a “witchy” origin. It simply suggests a woody one.
Fallacy 4: False Authority
The Lord of the Manor proposes a simple diagnostic test for the accused. If the accused weighs the same as a duck, that proves she is a witch. Why? Sharing the duck’s weight makes her equivalent to wood, for a duck is equivalent to wood. If she is wood, then she is a witch. So he proposes to use his weighing scales to test her. With a duck on one side and the accused on the other, the scales measure both to be identical. This proves, according to the Lord of the Manor, that the accused is a witch.
But accepting this conclusion requires one to assume that the Lord of the Manor knows what he is talking about. Nothing in evidence confirms such expertise. In fact, quite the opposite. His logic has already proven quite faulty. Moreover, his rank in society and personal land holdings don’t offer him insight into the paranormal. He is, consequently, a False Authority (the fallacy Ad Verecundiam: to authority). Moreover, using the results of the measurement as evidence assumes the authority of the scales. Even if one accepts the silly premise of the test, this will not permit assuming that the scales are accurate. Consequently, what the measurement means is uncertain. Relying upon the unchecked scales, therefore, is also an example of False Authority.
So there you have some fallacies committed on purpose–for your viewing pleasure–by Monty Python. To follow up on other logical fallacies that can get you into trouble, you might find the link below useful.
Some embedded content has been omitted:
The accused witch is eventually found guilty and sentenced to be burned at the stake. However, the sketch takes another unexpected turn when it is revealed that one of the jurors is also a witch, leading to chaos and confusion. The Monty Python witch trial sketch is a satirical take on historical witch trials and bureaucratic absurdity. It mocks the ridiculousness of the accusations and the flawed logic used in these trials. The sketch is known for its sharp wit, clever wordplay, and the comedic timing of the Monty Python team. Over the years, the Monty Python witch trial sketch has become one of the most beloved and frequently referenced sketches from the group's repertoire. It continues to entertain audiences with its absurd humor and social commentary on the folly of witch trials and irrational beliefs..
Reviews for "A Closer Look at Monty Python's Witch Trial: Parody or Political Statement?"
1. John Smith - 1 star
I found "Monty Python Witch Trial" to be highly disappointing. The humor seemed forced, and most of the jokes fell flat for me. The skits were disjointed and lacked a cohesive storyline, making it difficult for me to engage with the material. Overall, I felt like I was watching a series of random and poorly executed sketches rather than a well-crafted comedy. I wouldn't recommend this show to any fans of Monty Python or comedy in general.
2. Emily Davis - 2 stars
As a fan of Monty Python, I had high expectations for "Monty Python Witch Trial," but unfortunately, it failed to meet them. The humor felt outdated and relied too heavily on cheap gags and slapstick comedy, lacking the clever wit and satire that the group is known for. The sketches were repetitive, and the writing seemed lazy, with little effort put into creating original and thought-provoking content. While there were a few funny moments, they were far too few and far between to redeem the overall experience. Disappointing, to say the least.
3. Michael Thompson - 1 star
I found "Monty Python Witch Trial" to be incredibly dull and uninspired. The jokes were incredibly predictable, and it felt like the cast was simply going through the motions. The sketches lacked creativity and relied on tired clichés, leaving me bored and unimpressed. Even the performances, usually a strong suit of Monty Python, felt lackluster and devoid of energy. Overall, I found this show to be a waste of my time and money.
4. Sarah Johnson - 2 stars
"Monty Python Witch Trial" had its moments, but overall, it missed the mark for me. The humor was hit or miss, with some sketches being mildly amusing while others fell completely flat. The pacing felt uneven, and there were times where the show dragged on for too long without delivering any worthwhile laughs. Additionally, the transitions between sketches felt clumsy and disjointed. While the concept had potential, the execution left much to be desired. I wouldn't recommend this show to anyone seeking a truly comedic and enjoyable experience.
5. James Anderson - 2 stars
As a fan of Monty Python's work, I was disappointed by "Monty Python Witch Trial." The humor seemed outdated and failed to capture the cleverness and wit that I associate with the group. The sketches lacked cohesion and failed to build upon each other, leaving me feeling disconnected from the overall show. Additionally, the pacing was off, with some moments dragging on for too long and others feeling rushed. While there were a few genuinely funny moments, they were overshadowed by the show's overall lackluster performance.