Monty Python's Witch Trial: A Dialogue-Based Analysis

In the classic comedy film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," there is a memorable scene that parodies a witch trial. The dialogue in this scene is both hilarious and thought-provoking, as it uses absurdity and satire to critique the irrationality of such trials. The main idea behind this scene is the absurdity and irrationality of witch trials. The dialogue begins with a group of villagers bringing a woman, accused of being a witch, to trial. The lead knight, Sir Bedevere, questions the villagers on the evidence against the accused woman. The villagers present ludicrous claims, such as the fact that she turned them into newts (to which the woman innocently responds, "I got better").

The villagers present ludicrous claims, such as the fact that she turned them into newts (to which the woman innocently responds, "I got better"). The dialogue continues with the villagers struggling to make logical arguments against the woman. They point out that she weighs the same as a duck, implying that witches float like wood and therefore must be made of the same material.

Mooney's Theology Blog

Following the rules of logic is the key to making a good argument for any proposition. Logic is something of a science, which with practice, can be mastered. The following is meant to be an amusing demonstration of logic by using an example of bad logic from a scene in the classic British comedy Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975).

You may watch the clip here and then see my analysis of the logical reasoning below:

An Inductive Argument:

At the beginning of the scene, the mob attempts to use inductive reasoning, which means they attempt to arrive at a conclusion ("She's a witch!") by way of empirical evidence. What evidence do they provide? A witch's nose, witch's clothing, a witch's hat, and a wart. The nose, clothing, and hat all fail to lead to the conclusion, because, as it turns out, they forced her to dress in such a way. Therefore, they are false premises (see the argument below). The wart alone, then, is insufficient to declare her a witch, because non-witches have warts. This is the problem with inductive arguments--they are not conclusively true with absolute certainty. Inductive arguments, at their best, can only suggest the truth of their conclusion with a high degree of probability. [1] Inductive arguments may be strong and cogent. If the given premises lead to the conclusion with a high degree of probability, it is strong. If the given premises are true and they lead to the conclusion, the argument is cogent. In this case, the argument is strong, but not cogent (because three of the premises are false).

1. The woman has a witch's nose, (false premise)
2. and [she is wearing] witch's clothing, (false premise)
3. and [she is wearing] a witch's hat. (false premise)
4. She has a wart. (insufficient for the conclusion)
5. Only witches have witches' noses, clothing, hats, and warts.
6. Therefore, she's a witch!

A Deductive Argument:

1. If she weighs the same as a duck, she'll float. (false, confuses weight with density)
2. she does weigh the same as a duck; (true in this case, if the scales are to be trusted)
3. [conclusion #1] Therefore, she'll float. (valid but unsound)
4. If she floats, she is made of wood. (false, many other things float)
5. She does float; (false/based on conclusion #1)
6. [conclusion #2] Therefore, she's made of wood. (valid but unsound)
7. If she's made of wood, she's a witch. (assumed by all in the scene to be true)
8. She is made of wood; (false/based on conclusion #2)
9. [conclusion #3] Therefore, she's a witch! (valid but unsound)

Unfortunately for the young lady accused, this crowd of peasants and their dim-witted leader, Sir Bedevere, do not understand that arguments can be valid but still untrue.
-----------------------------------
[1] Scientific data and evidence presented in court are empirical data meant to construct an inductive argument. Scientific theories and verdicts in court can't be proven 100%; however, they can be demonstrated to be true beyond a "reasonable doubt."
[2] A syllogism is merely a form of argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two or more premises.
[3] I attempted to compose the argument in the same order as the film, but I couldn't make sense of it. Reworking it in reverse made it work.
[4] Each of the three deductive arguments that make up the larger argument that she is a witch are valid forms. The logical form that they are follow is called modus ponens, which means that the second line affirms the antecedent of the first first line. An explanation of the four valid deductive forms is beyond the scope of this post.
---------------------------------
Transcript:

Mob: "We've found a witch. May we burn her?"
Sir Bedevere: "How do you know she is a witch?"
Mob: "She looks like one!"

Man: "She turned me into a newt (pause). I got better"
Mob: "Burn her anyway!"
Sir Bedevere: "Quiet, Quiet, there are ways of telling if she is a witch. Tell me, what do you do with witches?"
Mob: "Burn 'em"
Sir Bedevere: "And what do you burn apart from witches?"
Mob: "More witches . (silence and pondering) . wood."
Sir Bedevere: "So, why do witches burn?"
Mob: " (pondering) because they're made of wood?"
Sir Bedevere: "Good . So, how do we well whether she is made of wood?"
Mob: "Build a bridge out of her."
Sir Bedevere: "Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?"
Mob: "Oh yeah. "
Sir Bedevere: "Does wood sink in water?"
Mob: "No, it floats. Throw her into the pond!"
Sir Bedevere: "What also floats in water?"
Mob: "apples. cider. cherries. nuts. churches. very small rocks. lead. "
King Arthur: "A duck!"
Sir Bedevere: "Exactly. So, logically .
Mob: "If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood."
Sir Bedevere: "And, therefore . "
Mob: "A witch!"

**This absurd argument highlights the main idea that witch trials were often based on illogical and baseless claims.** The absurdity of the scene escalates as another character, King Arthur, questions the validity of their claim. He asks "What also floats in water?" to which one of the villagers responds, "Bread... apples... very small rocks... cider... gravy... cherries... mud... a duck!" This exchange further emphasizes the ridiculousness of the villagers' argument and the lack of coherent evidence against the accused woman. As the scene progresses, Sir Bedevere concludes that if the woman weighs the same as a duck and ducks float like wood, then logically she must be made of wood, and therefore, a witch. King Arthur points out the flawed reasoning, stating that the method used to determine if someone is a witch is flawed. **This highlights the main idea that the witch trial system was inherently flawed and prone to irrationality.** The dialogue in this scene serves as a satirical critique of witch trials and the illogical reasoning often employed in such trials. It highlights the absurdity and lack of evidence in these trials, thereby challenging the credibility of such practices. Through humor and satire, Monty Python effectively delivers a social commentary on the irrationality of witch trials..

Reviews for "Monty Python's Witch Trial: From Script to Screen - A Dialogue Comparison"

1. John - 2/5 stars - I have always been a huge Monty Python fan, but I must admit that the witch trial scene dialogue fell flat for me. It felt overly repetitive and relied too heavily on absurdities for humor. It lacked the clever wordplays and intellectual humor that I loved in their other sketches. Overall, I was quite disappointed and felt that it didn't live up to the comedic genius of Monty Python.

2. Sarah - 3/5 stars - As a fan of Monty Python's wit and humor, I was excited to watch the witch trial scene dialogue. However, I found myself struggling to laugh at the jokes presented. While I understand that the absurdity and irrationality of the trial were intentional, I felt that the dialogue dragged on for too long without offering any fresh comedic elements. The repetitive nature of the jokes made me lose interest, and I ended up feeling underwhelmed by this particular sketch.

3. Matthew - 2/5 stars - The witch trial scene dialogue in Monty Python is often praised as a classic, but I fail to see the appeal. The humor relied heavily on stereotypes and cliches, which made the dialogue feel outdated and unoriginal. The constant repetition of jokes became tiresome quickly, and I found myself longing for more subtlety and cleverness. While I acknowledge that Monty Python has produced numerous brilliant sketches, this one fell short of their usual standards for me.

4. Emily - 2/5 stars - I found the witch trial scene dialogue in Monty Python to be rather disappointing. The jokes felt juvenile and lacked the cleverness I usually associate with Monty Python's comedy. The repetitive nature of the dialogue became tedious, and I failed to find any genuine laughs throughout the sketch. Overall, I was not impressed and felt that this particular scene fell flat compared to their other brilliant works.

The Humor of Miscommunication: Unveiling the Dialogue in Monty Python's Witch Trial