The following clip, known as “The Argument Clinic,” is from the British TV show, Monty Python’s Flying Circus (1972). It depicts a man who visits a clinic that offers people the opportunity to have an argument. At first, he enters the wrong office, and is subjected to abuse. Finding the proper office, he proceeds to have an argument with a clinic employee, though he quickly becomes upset about the nature of the conversation and their argument turns to the nature of the argument itself. Finally, the customer leaves in frustration.
The actors, themselves having been philosophy students, slip in a good definition of an argument and demonstrate ways in which conversations can succeed or fail to be successful forms of argumentation, all in humorous ways.
(From the beginning to 3:53)
When I teach Introduction to Philosophy, I always begin by talking about arguments — what they are and how we shall use them. In order to do so, I use the clip above. In the first part, the customer enters an office, and an employee insults him. After some confusion, the employee explains that this is not an argument; it’s abuse. This neatly makes the point that ad hominem attacks are not the way in which one engages in successful argumentation.
In the next room, the employee begins by simply contradicting whatever the customer says. The customer rightly points out that simple contradiction is not presenting an argument either.
He even defines an argument as “a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition,” which, by my lights, is a pretty good definition to encounter on a sketch comedy show!
They continue to argue about the nature of their conversation, debating whether it counts as an argument. Finally, the customer presents a small piece of deceptive reasoning, seemingly trapping the argument clinic employee, who nevertheless finds an escape.
This bit of the sketch gives an example of what a real attempt at argumentation looks like.
Thus, the sketch presents and discusses several common ways in which conversations fail to be arguments. For example, abuse and simple contradiction are usually mistakes some students might make when thinking about what an argument is. It then discusses the issue explicitly, providing a good definition of an argument, followed by providing an example. That it can do so while also being funny is truly a gift. Indeed, I continue to be impressed by the fact that a British comedy sketch from 1972 (50 years ago!) can still make my 18-year-old American students laugh out loud, while also educating them, is an accomplishment.
Possible readings:
A Guide to Good Reasoning: Cultivating Intellectual Virtues, by David C. Wilson
(A free-to-use, open source critical thinking textbook)
The Teaching and Learning Video Series 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 parkhurst1@usf.edu
Eugene Marshall
Eugene Marshall is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Florida International University. His research concerns Spinoza, Cavendish, and the 17th Century. He teaches history of philosophy courses, as well as a course on philosophy and science fiction.
