In the iconic comedy sketch by Monty Python called "How to Tell a Witch," absurdity and satire are used to critique the way witch trials were conducted during the medieval and early modern periods. The sketch starts with villagers in a medieval town participating in a witch trial, led by a man who claims to be an expert on identifying witches. This man, played by Michael Palin, explains four ways to tell if someone is a witch. The first method is to weigh the witch against a duck, as the villagers believed that witches were lighter than ducks due to their supernatural powers. When the accused woman is placed on the scales with a duck, she of course weighs the same as the bird. However, the villagers ignore this inconsistency and proceed to the next method.

Monty Python Witch Trial: Validity, Soundness, and the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

In the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), there is a scene involving a Witch Burning Trial that I use in my critical thinking course to analyze valid and sound arguments. It is great for teaching students to recognize the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

In the scene, the townspeople accuse a woman of being a witch, and then a knight leads them through a hilariously flawed line of reasoning.

First, we try to informally map the structure of the argument. One can do this in many different ways but this is the way I break down the structure of the script:

1. We know this woman is a witch because she looks like one.
2. We know this woman is a witch because she dresses like one.
3. We know this woman is a witch because she has a wart.
4. We know this woman is a witch because she turned someone into a newt.
5. One burns witches.
6. One burns wood.
7. Witches burn because they are made out of wood.
8. Bridges are made of wood.
9. However, bridges are multiply realizable. They can be built from stone. [Implied] Building a bridge out of the woman will not determine that she is made of wood.
10. Wood floats in water.
11. A duck floats in water [bread, apples, very small rocks, cider, gravy, cherries, mud, churches, lead].
12. If the woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is made of wood.
13. The woman weighs the same as a duck.
14. Therefore, the woman is a witch.

After going through the script and helping the students find this basic structure (or something similar), we then turn to a logical analysis of this argument. The students will likely be able to identify the argument as unsound very quickly, though they will be slower to understand why it’s invalid.

This argument is clearly unsound. However, we can try to clean up and analyze the argument itself. I break the class up into groups. I provide the students the script and suggest there are four separate arguments in it. I give them the conclusion of each argument below and ask them to try to find the premises in the script that might lead to that conclusion. I warn them ahead of time that they should find the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

The following are the four arguments I they will usually find:

First Argument: Valid. Unsound.

P1. All witches are things that can be burned.

P2. All things that can burn are made of wood.

C: Therefore, all witches are made of wood.

Second Argument: Invalid. Commits Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

P1. All things that are made out of wood are also things that can float.

P2. All things that weigh the same as a duck are things that can float.

C: Therefore, things that weigh the same as a duck are things that are made of wood.

Third Argument: Invalid. Commits Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.

P1. All witches are made out of wood.

P2. All things that weigh the same as a duck are things that are made out of wood.

C: Therefore, all witches are things that weigh the same as a duck.

Fourth Argument: Invalid. Commits Fallacy of Undistributed Middle.

P1. All witches are things that weigh the same as a duck.

P2. This thing weighs the same as a duck.

C: Therefore, this thing is a witch.

This clip is particularly helpful in introducing students to how to break down arguments in everyday usage and figure out what has gone wrong with them. Depending on the class level, the instructor may want to go over each argument with the class as a whole rather than in groups. I find that using Venn diagrams on the board with this assignment can be helpful.

This clip allows students to gain a deeper understanding of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. This analysis also allows for a productive discussion about the difference between validity and soundness. In particular, the first argument is valid but unsound. The students find this a great example to flesh out their intuitions.

Sources and other resources:

• Witch Scene Script.
• “The Undistributed Middle.”Fallacy Files. (4/24/19)
• Yount, David. “Monty Python and The Holy Grail: The Witch Argument in Logical Form and Why it is Fallacious” (2015). (4/24/19)
• “Monty Python and the Quest for the Perfect Fallacy. Teacher’s Guide: The Witches Trial Argument.”Annenberg Classroom. (4/24/19)
• Hoë, Jesse. “Logical Analysis of Monty Python’s Witch Scene from the Holy Grail.” (4/24/19)

This section of the Blog of APA is designed to share pedagogical approaches to using humorous video clips for teaching philosophy. Humor, when used appropriately, has empirically been shown to correlate with higher retention rates. If you are interested in contributing to this series, please email the Series Editor, William A. B. Parkhurst, at [email protected].

• Tags
• critical thinking
• Fallacies
• Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
• Logic
• Monty Python Witch Trial
• Sabrina D. MisirHiralall
• William A. B. Parkhurst

“How Do You Tell a Witch?”: Today’s Lesson in Logic from Monty Python

Well, all the punditry (radio, web, news programs) is really getting to me today. Not the pugilistic atmosphere itself, mind you. After all, politics is a full-body contact sport. But the endless illogical bloviations and outright falsehoods. That’s right, even though all the world believed Saddam had WMDs, since Bush acted on what everyone else believed, he lied–er, I mean, intentionally misled the world, who, now say they never believed Iraq had WMDs. I would flunk any freshmen in my logic class who tried that stunt. Oh, and don’t forget: we can trust the U.N.’s assessment on Iraqi WMDs, since just about the entire anti-Bush Eurocrat crowd was on the bogus Oil-for-Food take. (Was that what Kedwards meant by global test?) Logic!

So, in moments like these, I turn to Monty Python to soothe my troubled mind. Today, I consoled myself with the logic lession contained in “How Do You Tell a Witch” (scroll down to scene five):

MONKS: [chanting] Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
Pie Iesu domine,…
[bonk]
…dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
Pie Iesu domine,…
[bonk]
…dona eis requiem.
CROWD: A witch! A witch! [bonk] A witch! A witch!
MONKS: [chanting] Pie Iesu domine…
CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We’ve found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We’ve got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! We’ve found a witch! We’ve found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.

CROWD: Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I’m not a witch. I’m not a witch.
BEDEVERE: Uh, but you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: Augh, we didn’t! We didn’t…
WITCH: And this isn’t my nose. It’s a false one.
BEDEVERE: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat, but she is a witch!
VILLAGER #2: Yeah!
CROWD: We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE: Did you dress her up like this?
VILLAGER #1: No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3: No. No.
VILLAGER #2: No.
VILLAGER #1: No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3: No.
VILLAGER #1: Yes.
VILLAGER #2: Yes.
VILLAGER #1: Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3: A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2: A bit.
VILLAGER #3: A bit.
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
RANDOM: [cough]
BEDEVERE: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
VILLAGER #1: Burn!
CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her!…
BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1: Are there?
VILLAGER #2: Ah?
VILLAGER #1: What are they?
CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!…
BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
VILLAGER #1: Burn!
CROWD: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!…
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #3: Shh!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn? [pause]
VILLAGER #3: B–… ’cause they’re made of… wood?
BEDEVERE: Good! Heh heh.
CROWD: Oh yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE: Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1: Oh, yeah.
RANDOM: Oh, yeah. True. Uhh…
BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No. No.
VILLAGER #2: No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Uh, gra– gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR: A duck!
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically…
VILLAGER #1: If… she… weighs… the same as a duck,… she’s made of wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore?
VILLAGER #2: A witch!
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch! A witch!…
VILLAGER #4: Here is a duck. Use this duck. [quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE: We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD: Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh…
BEDEVERE: Right. Remove the supports! [whop] [clunk] [creak]
CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch!
WITCH: It’s a fair cop.
VILLAGER #3: Burn her!
CROWD: Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!…
BEDEVERE: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
ARTHUR: I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
BEDEVERE: My liege!
ARTHUR: Good Sir Knight, will you come with me to Camelot, and join us at the Round Table?
BEDEVERE: My liege! I would be honored.
ARTHUR: What is your name?
BEDEVERE: Bedevere, my liege.
ARTHUR: Then I dub you Sir Bedevere, Knight of the Round Table.

Select a country or region

Copyright © 2024 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.

• Internet Service Terms
• Apple Music & Privacy
• Cookie Warning
• Support
• Feedback

Select a country or region

However, the villagers ignore this inconsistency and proceed to the next method. The second method is the "wood float" test. The accused woman is tied to a wooden plank and thrown into a pond.

Africa, Middle East, and India

See All

If she floats, she is deemed a witch. Again, the sketch highlights the absurdity of this belief as the woman floats in the water, yet the villagers still doubt her innocence. The third method is to determine if the woman has a wart on her nose. According to the sketch, witches were believed to have a distinctive wart on their noses which, when touched, would result in a loud screeching noise. Each time the man touches the accused woman's nose, she screams in pain, but the villagers interpret this as proof of her guilt. Finally, the man reveals the fourth method - if the woman looks like a witch. He justifies this method by stating that if someone looks like a witch, talks like a witch, and acts like a witch, then they must be a witch. This argument satirizes the circular logic and confirmation bias often present in witch trials, where individuals were accused based on stereotypes and preconceived notions. Through this sketch, Monty Python highlights the irrationality, ignorance, and injustice of witch trials. By using humor and satire, they draw attention to the absurd methods used to determine guilt, as well as the prejudice and lack of evidence that led to countless innocent people being persecuted. Ultimately, "How to Tell a Witch" serves as a comedic critique of historical witch trials and their impact on society. It raises awareness of the dangers of mob mentality, irrational beliefs, and the importance of critical thinking in evaluating accusations, while using humor to entertain and provoke thought..

Reviews for "Monty Python's Witchfinder General: Unmasking the True Witch Hunters"

1. John - 2 out of 5 stars - I honestly did not understand the hype around "Monty Python: How to Tell a Witch". The humor was just not my style, and I found it to be rather nonsensical. The sketches were disjointed and lacked any coherent storyline. I couldn't connect with the characters, and the jokes fell flat for me. Overall, it was a disappointment and I would not recommend it to anyone who doesn't appreciate absurdist humor.

2. Sarah - 1 out of 5 stars - I cannot express how much I disliked "Monty Python: How to Tell a Witch". The entire movie felt like a jumbled mess of random and absurd scenes that failed to make me laugh or even crack a smile. It was like watching a group of comedians trying too hard to be funny. The humor was too silly for my taste, and I found myself cringing more than laughing. I couldn't wait for it to end and I definitely regret wasting my time on this film.

3. Michael - 2 out of 5 stars - As a longtime fan of Monty Python, I was highly disappointed by "How to Tell a Witch". The sketches lacked the clever wit and brilliant writing that I have come to expect from the group. The jokes were repetitive and relied too heavily on slapstick humor, which I didn't find amusing. It felt like a low-effort attempt to cash in on the Monty Python brand without delivering the quality content that fans deserve. I would recommend skipping this one and revisiting the classics instead.

4. Emily - 2.5 out of 5 stars - I found "Monty Python: How to Tell a Witch" to be quite underwhelming. While there were a few funny moments scattered throughout, the overall movie lacked cohesiveness and failed to keep my attention. The humor felt outdated and many of the jokes relied on clichés and stereotypes. It didn't live up to my expectations and I was left feeling disappointed. It's not a film I would watch again or recommend to others.

The Witch's Guide to Avoiding Detection: Monty Python's Top Tips