Who’s on First?
Below we’ve linked to a video of Abbot and Costello’s famous "Who’s on First?" comedy routine:
Abbot and Costello fail to communicate. Each of them makes sense to himself, but the other guy doesn’t get it. This is okay - it happens to all of us. What makes this skit funny and ridiculous is that neither of them is able to change the way he speaks. They say the same thing over and over, hoping the other guy will eventually understand. Have you done this?
Also, Abbot and Costello commit a fallacy in this video. What is the name of this fallacy?
Dear Hans and Nathaniel,
You have some celebrity status here in Western NY. My classes and I talk about you all the time. The word on the street is that Logic is their favorite class.
This is the second year I have taught a logic class and this year I have two classes. Every one has been a blessing. Thanks for writing such a fun book, and for keeping up the website that goes along with it.
I just found Laura Xentara’s bread test. I know the kids will have fun studying for the final with these new examples. Linda
Copyright June 15, 2010, all rights reserved. 24116 views
Facebook Comments
Site Comments
1 • Bruce Turner • June 15, 2010 • 3:43 PM
I think it’s equivocation where the meaning of the words is changed throughout the conversation. Funny, I taught Logic and Criticial Thinking this past year and played the “Who’s On First” sketch for my class as an example of this fallacy. Great work
2 • Courtney • June 15, 2010 • 4:36 PM
Isn’t this an equivocation? I haven’t done logic in a while, but that’s what comes to mind.
3 • Topher • June 15, 2010 • 6:30 PM
Hi, my name is Topher Freeman. I like your book the fallacy detective a lot. I read your email Who’s on First and I think the answer is Equivocation from lesson 15 thank’s for the fallacy.
4 • steve • June 16, 2010 • 6:47 PM
Perhaps the falliacy of equivocation?
5 • johanna kautt • July 04, 2010 • 5:52 PM
Hmm…cute! I love that last photo with the either or fallacy.
6 • qwrfr Green • August 20, 2010 • 3:30 AM
I agree with Bruce Turner on the point that it’s equivocation where the meaning of the words is changed throughout the conversation.
Nice material for teaching.
7 • salbahe16 • August 25, 2010 • 2:46 AM
I think it’s equivocation where the meaning of the words is changed throughout the conversation. Funny, I taught Logic and Criticial Thinking this past year and played the “Who’s On First” sketch for my class as an example of this fallacy. Great work
8 • salbahe16 • August 26, 2010 • 3:18 AM
i agree with bruce too.. and i love the photos of this!
9 • ghd mk4 • October 14, 2010 • 11:53 PM
The problem is the Thomistic empiricism - Cothran claims that all of our concepts are built up from sense perception. A Biblical psychology would recognize that we are born with innate categories and can apprehend concepts without the animal process of sensation. Gordon Clark, for one, would have questioned the possibility of getting from a percept to a ghd mk4concept. Empiricism is a godless philosophy and is riddled with difficulties.
That said, the book is useful.
10 • Catherine Bernadith Goodwin • October 16, 2010 • 12:56 AM
Even though I’m not that old…lol..But I do love the Abbot and Costello’s show its funny movie, but I guess the old one was the one with Hitlers looks….hehehehe.
11 • Ryan McKeever • October 24, 2010 • 9:15 AM
ghd mk4 said:
>A Biblical psychology would recognize that we are born with innate categories and can apprehend concepts without the animal process of sensation.<
I hate to sound pretentious, but I believe this is a presupposition forwarded by Emmanuel Kant. To grossly over-simplify, neither empiricism nor kantian categories are unbiblical.
One could find scripture to support both positions. In particular I am thinking of Ps. 34:8, “Taste and see that the LORD is good…”(NRSV), with scripture recommending here that we ‘experience’ God’s goodness. Yet, empiricism claims that knowledge is founded upon sense experience, potentially lending itself to understanding the life of faith. Of course in Gen:1:26, God says, “Let us create humankind in our likeness…”(NRSV) implying that our ‘innate’ faculties of understanding are merely reflections of God’s pre-existent wisdom.
This is all to say we must be very careful and listen to the totality of scripture. While Hume was at best an ‘ambiguous’ Christian, Kant himself subverted Christianity and God to his concepts of pure reason.
I hope I have not offended any with my over generalizations. Feel free to correct any misuses of scripture or philosophical equivocations!
12 • Harold A. Dennison • December 29, 2010 • 9:27 PM
I agree with Bruce Turner on the point that it’s equivocation where the meaning of the words is changed throughout the conversation.