Once upon a time, in a remote kingdom, there lived a powerful and wise sovereign. He ruled his people with fairness and compassion, always striving to protect them. However, lurking in the shadows was a mysterious and feared witch, known for her dark magic and sinister intentions. The witch, envious of the sovereign's power and popularity, sought to overthrow him and take control of the kingdom. She devised cunning plans and cast wicked spells, trying to weaken his rule and sow seeds of discord among the people. Unbeknownst to the witch, the sovereign possessed a unique ability – an unwavering resilience and unyielding determination.
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.
Unbeknownst to the witch, the sovereign possessed a unique ability – an unwavering resilience and unyielding determination. He stood tall, undeterred by the witch's machinations and continuously worked towards the betterment of his kingdom. As the witch's attacks grew bolder, the sovereign's true strength shone through.
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:
His benevolent actions and kind nature had won the hearts of the people, making it difficult for the witch to turn them against him. The love and loyalty the people had for their sovereign acted as a shield, protecting him from the witch's evil influence. Realizing that her dark magic was no match for the power of unity and goodness, the witch grew desperate. She knew she had to find another way to fulfill her wicked desires. So she decided to confront the sovereign face-to-face, hoping to strike fear into his heart and make him bow down before her. On the day of their encounter, the witch arrived, her dark aura looming over the kingdom. She presented the sovereign with a choice – surrender his throne and relinquish his power, or face unimaginable consequences. The sovereign, unyielding in his resolve, refused to bow down to the witch's demands. With a wave of her hand, the witch unleashed her dark magic upon the sovereign, hoping to finally defeat him. But to her astonishment, her spells had no effect. The sovereign stood strong, unfazed by her attempts, and instead, with a flick of his own hand, cast a powerful spell that stripped the witch of her powers. As the witch stood powerless before the sovereign, her sinister plans were unravelled, and the people saw her for who she truly was. In a final act of mercy, the sovereign banished the witch from the kingdom, forever ensuring the safety and prosperity of his people. From that day forward, the sovereign's legend grew. His unwavering determination and resilience became a symbol of hope and inspiration for the kingdom. The people celebrated their wise and powerful sovereign, who had triumphed over the forces of darkness and protected them from harm. In this tale of the witch and the sovereign, the main idea is the power of righteousness and unity against the forces of evil. The sovereign's unwavering determination and the love of his people shielded him from the witch's dark magic, ultimately leading to her defeat and the continued prosperity of the kingdom..
Reviews for "The Witch and the Sovereign: Unleashing the Forces of Darkness"
1. Sarah - 2 stars - I was really disappointed with "The Witch and the Sovereign". The plot was confusing and disjointed, leaving me feeling lost and unsatisfied. The characters were also poorly developed, with no clear motivations or depth. Overall, it felt like the book was trying too hard to be unique and innovative, without actually delivering a compelling story.
2. James - 1 star - "The Witch and the Sovereign" was a complete waste of time. The writing style was pretentious and difficult to follow, making it hard to engage with the story. The pacing was slow, and I found myself bored throughout most of the book. The themes and messages were convoluted and muddled, leaving me with more questions than answers. I would not recommend this book to anyone.
3. Emily - 2 stars - I didn't enjoy "The Witch and the Sovereign" as much as I had hoped. The world-building was confusing and lacked cohesion, making it difficult to fully immerse myself in the story. The dialogue felt forced and unnatural, making it hard to connect with the characters. Additionally, the ending felt rushed and unresolved, leaving me feeling unsatisfied. Overall, I found this book to be a bit of a letdown.
4. Michael - 3 stars - While "The Witch and the Sovereign" had some interesting concepts and moments, I found it to be a bit too complex for my taste. The plot threads were convoluted and hard to follow, leading to a frustrating reading experience. Additionally, the characters lacked depth and growth, making it hard to fully invest in their stories. While there were glimpses of potential, the execution fell short for me.