i posted this a long time ago on my myspace blog (but who reads those?) and then realized that, since anna posted her horses essay, i should post my analysis on the proof of witches. i can be clever, too! a clever.....clever...clever albatross!

{proof} of witches.

i will now analyze the validity and soundness of the well-known proof of witches.

there are four main syllogism's in this proof:
1. all that burns is wood
witches burn
witches are made of wood

2. all that float on water weigh equally
wood and ducks float on water
wood and ducks weigh equally

then, implied is:

3. wood and ducks weigh equally
witches are made of wood
witches and ducks weigh equally

this proof, then, is applied to situation:

4. witches and ducks weigh equally
the accused weighs as much as a duck
the accused is a witch

now; is this argument valid?
well the first three syllogisms are, indeed, valid. assuming both premises are true in all three, the conclusions must then also be true. however, in the fourth case, assuming both premises are true, can one truly infer the conclusion? was it ever stated that all that weighs as much as a duck is a witch? indeed, this was not the case. what would have been valid could only be:

4. witches and ducks weigh equally
the accused weighs as much as a duck
the accused weighs as much as a witch

could this be remedied? i'm afraid not. for if one tried to correct the proof with a statement such that all that weigh as much as a witch are witches, that surely would create confusion, because the duck, then, would also be a witch and therefore defeats the purpose of any of the previous syllogisms because one could only discover a witch by weighing it alongside a fellow witch. the duck was also not prosecuted, so this could not be the case.

so we have arrived with our understanding that the 4th syllogism is not valid, therefore automatically making it not sound. but are any of the arguments sound?

the answer is no. for the arguments to be sound, each premise must be true. in fact, only one premise of each of the first two syllogisms is true. it is not true that all that burns is wood, because candle wicks burn and ducks burn and cakes and muffins burn.

(i can assure you that none of the preceding are, indeed, made of wood. for example a wooden muffin would indubitably taste horrid, be hard to chew, and give us splinters in our mouths. we all know that this is not the case, because muffins are light, fluffy balls of goodness.)

the 3rd argument is far from being sound since it uses two premises from previous unsound arguments.

this, therefore, invalidates the entire proof and, therefore, that young woman was prosecuted unfairly and Sir Bedevere should not be revered as a great logician; he is flawed.

as citizens burnt the innocent, the mistreated duck quacked silently in memory of a woman murdered by false logic.