//
you're reading...
Logic & Scientific Philosophy

Monty Python and the Holy Grail Logic – Leon

If you haven’t watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail, it’s basically a parody of the Arthurian Legend.

This is a example of a valid but not a factually correct argument, making this not sound. Their argument is long than the ones we did in class with and its not like your basic “all x are y”. The format of this seem to be like:

All x are y

All y are z

/all x are z

But in a very long and idiotic way. I would to type the whole format, I’ll probably use almost every letter in the alphabet. Since it’s from Monty Python, their logic is really laughable, unintelligent, and idiotic. The premises are correct but not factually correct. Back in the medieval times, people used to believe that witches existed and the people would burn them if they found one. What else would they burn? Wood which would mean witches are made out of wood but that’s not factually correct because witches are human which are made of flesh and bone. The same thing would go with floating in water and being the weight of a duck. There are so many things that can float but yet they pick one the of closest thing that is a size of a human.

Advertisements

Discussion

4 thoughts on “Monty Python and the Holy Grail Logic – Leon

  1. Good work on using a Monty Python reference, Leon! I actually wrote a very similar post about this last year: https://talonsphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/she-turned-me-into-a-newt/ Next time, though, I would lay out the argument and then de-construct it clearly, so even people who don’t watch the video or don’t know Monty Python can see exactly what made the argument not sound.

    Posted by evandervelden | September 27, 2013, 4:19 am
    • Thanks for the feedback! I really appreciate it! Yeah I was contemplating whether or not to explain Monty Python but at the time I thought people would watch the video or at least know what’s Monty Python (since I thought it was classic movie).

      Posted by lchai96 | September 27, 2013, 4:59 am
      • I suppose that’s a good point, since most people do seem to know Monty Python. I usually prefer to over-explain rather than under-explain, but the logic of the argument is pretty well explained in the video by Sir Bedivere.

        Posted by evandervelden | September 29, 2013, 1:15 am

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: