Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Lessons in logic from ‘Seinfeld’
Lessons in logic from ‘Seinfeld’
Dec 15, 2025 12:58 PM

Last week marked the thirtieth anniversary of the launch of the megahit TV show Seinfeld. During its reign the series was often described as “a show about nothing.” But in reality it was a show about a lot of things, including logic and truth. “There is more logic in humor than in anything else” said edian Victor Borge, “Because, you see, humor is truth.”

Comedians aren’t often known for their critical thinking skills and Mr. Spock—the Vulcan embodiment of cool logic—wasn’t known for his jokes. So at first glance it might appear that humor and logic belong pletely separate spheres. Humor is playful, lively, and unbounded by procedural standards. Logic, in contrast, is serious, strict, pletely circumscribed by rules and processes. Humor is tied to emotion while logic is above such non-rational ephemera. But in a 2005 article for Philosophy Now, Julia Nefsky argued that logic has a very real and very important role in humor:

The range of humour in which there is logic and logical fallacy is huge. By logic and fallacy being in humour I mean that there is some logic or fallacy there that is necessary to what makes it funny. In other words, if you hypothetically removed that logic or fallacy, the joke would not work. You’ll find logic and logical fallacies in all kinds of humorous works, including those of Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll, Monty Python, the Marx Brothers, Abbott and Costello, Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Steve Martin, Stephen Leacock, Douglas Adams, and even television shows like Beavis and Butthead.

Also, logic and fallacies are used in many ics, including Garfield, Calvin and Hobbes, and Peanuts. And there are lots of great examples in the work of edians like Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Cosby, George Carlin, and Henny Youngman. In fact, basically everywhere you look in humour there will be some bits in which logic or fallacy is used in a significant way – sometimes just a couple can be found, and other times they are all over the place!

Every time logic or a fallacy is used in humour it serves a specific role. I have found that a convenient way of classifying examples is in terms of three roles that seem to cover all the significant ways logic and fallacy are used in humour: essence, enhancer, and mechanism

In the article, Nefsky explains each of these terms and provides examples of how they are used. Although she provides adequate illustrations, I’ve taken the liberty of using her roles but replacing the examples with ones from episodes ofSeinfeld. Needless to say, these examples are funnier if—like me—you’ve seen every episode at least six times. I also provide an example of these fallacies from the realms of economics and politics—and those aren’t so funny.

Roles of Essence— The logic or fallacy used serves as the essence of what makes it funny. In these cases other aspects might enhance the humor, but the logic or fallacy is precisely what makes it funny, such that without it there is no humor left.

Type #1 —Equivocation: the name of the mon informal fallacy used in humor. Equivocation occurs when two different meanings or senses of the same word(s) are used as if equivalent. In humor equivocation is often played out with two people—where one person says something implying one meaning and the other person takes it as if another meaning was intended.

“I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he’s converted to Judaism purely for the jokes.”

“And this offends you as a Jewish person?”

“No, it offends me as edian.”

– Jerry and Father Curtis, in“The Yada Yada”

—————————————————————————————

“You are still afraid? You are not a man.”

“Well, then what are all those ties and sports jackets doing in my closet?”

– Gina and Jerry, in“The Suicide”

—————————————————————————————

“I still can’t believe you’re going out on a blind date.”

“I’m not worried. It sounds like he’s really good looking.”

“You’re going by sound? What are we, whales?”

– Jerry and Elaine, in“The Wink”

—————————————————————————————

“Wait. Those are the clothes from the bag!”

“The guy never came back.”

“He asked you to watch them, not wear them.”

“I’m still watching them.”

– Jerry and George, in“The Muffin Tops”

A prime example of equivocation in politics is the term “Medicare for all.” A recent poll found that when asked to characterize what “Medicare for All” means to them, respondents are divided: 40 percent think “Medicare for All” would eliminate the private insurance market and require everyone to switch to Medicare, while 60 percent think it would let anyone buy Medicare who wants to, while allowing others to stay on their private insurance. Democrats are most likely to think “Medicare for All” is a “buy-in” program, while Republicans are much more likely to understand what Democrat politicians mean by the term—a program that would eliminate most, if not all, private insurance.

Type #2 —Contradiction— One thing in logic that is often used in humor and that usually serves the role of essence is known as contradiction or absurdity. This occurs when contradictory statements are given or implied, producing a nonsensical, absurd situation. In terms of formal logic, this is like having both “A” and “not A” (where A could be substituted with anything). In formal logic having both “A” and “not A” simultaneously is considered always false, or as some logicians say: absurd.

“What if something happens?”

“What could happen?”

“What if it felt good?”

“It’s supposed to feel good.”

“I don’t want it to feel good.”

“Then why get the massage?”

“Exactly!”

– George, discussing a massage given by a male masseuse, with Elaine, in“The Note”

mon contradiction in the Age of Trump is Republicans who support tariffs and oppose tax increases. (The Trump tariffs are expected tocost Americans $915 each—or $2,400 per household—in the form of higher prices, lower wages and lower investment. They could also wipe out more jobs than were created in 2017 (2.1 million)).

Type #3 —False Cause— There is an informal fallacy called False Cause that is used in humor and that often has the role of essence. False Cause happens when it is assumed that simply because A has preceded B, that A has caused B.

“No doctors for me. A bunch of lackeys and yes-men all towing pany line. Plus, they botched my vasectomy.”

“They botched it?”

“I’m even more potent now!”

– Kramer and Jerry, in“The Andrea Doria”

The mon false cause is the belief that electing a president causes the economy to boom. President Trump and his supporters, for example, often give him credit for an “economic recovery” that began eight years before he took office. But supporters of President Obama did the same thing, crediting him with saving us all from an even worse economic disaster.

Noah Smith calls this false cause claim that the President of the United States controls economic es the “Fundamental Fallacy of Pop Economics.” “The Fundamental Fallacy is in operation every time you hear a phrase like “the Bush boom” or ‘the Obama recovery,’” says Smith. “It’s in effect every time someone asks ‘how many jobs Obama has created’. It’s present every time you see charts of economic activity divided up by presidential administration.” The reality is that neither princes nor presidents are in charge of the economy.

The Role of Enhancer— the logic or fallacy adds to the essence of what is funny to make it even funnier.

Type #1 —Hasty Generalizations— occurs when a generalization is made from too few cases or, as often seen in humor, when the generalization is obviously not true as a literal statement (a clear exaggeration).

“So, what you are saying is that ninety to ninety-five percent of the population is undateable?”

“Undateable!”

“Then how are all these people getting together?”

“Alcohol.”

– Elaine and Jerry, in“The Wink”

—————————————————————————————

“What is it about sex that just disrupts everything? Is it the touching? Is it the nudity?”

“It can’t be the nudity. I never got into these terrible fights and misunderstandings when I was changing before gym class.”

– George and Jerry, in“The Deal”

—————————————————————————————

“All bald people look good in hats.”

“You should have lived in the twenties and thirties, you know men wore hats all the time then.”

“What a bald paradise that must have been. Nobody knew.”

– George and Elaine, in“The Parking Spot”

mon form of hasty generalization is when, for rhetorical effect, we make claims about our political opponents that are based on a vocal minority. If you listen to Democrat and Republican politicians you’d get the impression that the vast majority of Americans support socialism and protectionism. In reality, a majority of U.S. adults say socialism would be a bad thing for the country (51 percent) and that free trade agreements have been a “good thing” for the country as a whole (56 percent).

Politicians tend to make hasty generalizations based on the views of their hardcore supporters—groups that tend to be out of sync with mainstream America.

The Role of Mechanism— the logic or fallacy is what gets you from one thought to another. When formal logic takes on the role of mechanism, valid logic is used to get the reader or audience to make a certain inference from one idea to another.

“Well, behind every joke there’s some truth.”

“What about that Bavarian cream pie joke I told you? There’s no truth to that. Nobody with a terminal illness goes from the United States to Europe for a piece of Bavarian cream pie and then when they get there and they don’t have it he says, ‘Ah, I’ll just have some coffee.’ There’s no truth to that.”

– Sheila and Jerry, in“The Soup Nazi”

—————————————————————————————

“God would never let me be successful. He’d kill me first. He’ll never let me be happy.”

“I thought you didn’t believe in God?”

“I do for the bad things.”

– George and his therapist, in“The Pilot”

—————————————————————————————

“I’ve been lying about my e for a few years. I figured I could afford a fake house in the Hamptons.”

– George, in“The Wizard”

—————————————————————————————

“What are you saying?”

“I’m not saying anything.”

“You’re saying something.”

“What could I be saying?”

“Well, you’re not saying nothing. You must be saying something.”

“If I was saying something, I would’ve said it.”

“Why don’t you say it?”

“I said it.”

“What’d you say?”

“Nothing.”

– Jerry and Elaine, in“The Red Dot”

—————————————————————————————

“It’s a write-off for them.”

“How is it a write-off?”

“They just write it off.”

“Write it off what?”

“Jerry, all these panies, they write off everything.”

“You don’t even know what a write-off is.”

“Do you?”

“No, I don’t.”

“But they do. And they’re the ones writing it off.”

“I wish I had the last twenty seconds of my life back.”

– Kramer and Jerry, in“The Package”

—————————————————————————————

To use the example of tariffs again (tariffs are a magnet for bad thinking), Trump has claimed on numerous occasions that the U.S. is collecting billions of dollars in tariffs from China. The president seems to have the same understanding of tariffs that Kramer has about write-offs.

When e in from foreign countries, such as China, importers — which are usually Americans—pay tariffs to U.S. Customs in order to receive their products. In other words, American businesses such as Walmart and Target are paying the tax and then passing it along to American consumers.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Global warming on Jupiter?
It appears so: Close inspections of Red Spot Jr., in Hubble images released today, reveal that similar to the Great Red Spot, the more recently developed storm rises above the top of the main cloud deck on Jupiter. Little is known about how storms form on the giant planet. They are often described as behaving similar to hurricanes on Earth. Some astronomers believe that the spots dredge up material deep below Jupiter’s clouds and lift it to where the Sun’s...
Clear thinking on immigration
Andrew Yuengert, the author of Inhabiting the Land – The Case for the Right to Migrate, the Acton study on immigration, looks at the current debate and debunks mon misconceptions. “The biggest burdens from immigration are not economic – they are the turmoil caused by the large numbers of illegal immigrants,” Yuengert writes. Read mentary here. ...
Religious liberty in Japan
For the past several decades in the United States many parents have gravitated toward one extreme or the other in terms of allowing religion in public schools. It is generally understood these days that our public school system is not a religious organization, and should not promote one religion as a state religion, over others. Of course, this does not mean that morality or other ideas that call on the revelation of religion cannot be taught, but we try to...
Subsidiarity in action
In January, I wrote about the Central Plains wildfires as a very personal crisis in my Oklahoma hometown. I underscored the importance of subsidiarity, which is the idea that a central authority should perform only those tasks which cannot be handled effectively at a more immediate or local level. I’ve now had opportunity to practice subsidiarity in Oklahoma. And I can tell you, it’s harder to do than to talk or write about in the abstract. The preceding months of...
The long arm of corruption
As the immigration debate mentators dig deeper in the search for the “sources of the problem.” Many have rightly pointed out that a healthier Mexican economy would alleviate the need that spurs many Mexicans to seek financial recourse across the border. Whatever one’s views on the current debate, we ought to be able to agree that a more prosperous Mexico would be beneficial for everyone. But then others have correctly noted that talk about the Mexican economy is really a...
A global split?
Mark Tooley in the Weekly Standard – “The Religious Left thinks that global warming is about to break-up the Religious Right.” According to Wallis, “biblically-faithful Christians” are soon going to turn against the Religious Right and instead follow his Religious Left. Instead, it seems more likely that an easy acceptance of apocalyptic warnings about a burning planet will ultimately confirm, not overturn, the political leanings of conservative evangelicals. It troubles me that Wallis seems to hope it does; confirms the...
Improving Catholic education
For Catholics, few doubt the importance of quality Catholic secondary education. However, many know that the current state of Catholic secondary education in America leaves much to be desired. The question that naturally rises is “what can concerned people do to enact serious improvement?” The Acton Institute offers at least one solution. The Catholic High School Honor Roll is a unique evaluation system that assesses the overall quality of Catholic high schools based on academic excellence, Catholic identity, and civic...
A time to tear, a time to speak
“There is a time for everything, / and a season for every activity under heaven…a time to tear and a time to mend, / a time to be silent and a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:1,7 NIV). On April 19, 1963, writing from the jail in Birmingham, Martin Luther King, Jr. penned the following words: We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet...
Ecobits
Two quick bits for your Tuesday: – Federal judges on green junkets at your expense? CRC says so! – Is “steady state ecological economics” the answer to environmental and economic woes? [also, a quick thanks to Jordan for inviting me to join the PowerBlog team.] Federal judges on green junkets at your expense? But the three organizations CRC singles out have an agenda that goes beyond education and is the equivalent of lobbying, Kendall contends. FREE, for example, describes itself...
Coercing charity
This section from Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics strikes me as quite true: The coercive factors, in distinction to the more purely moral and rational factors, in political relations can never be sharply differentiated and defined. It is not possible to estimate exactly how much a party to a social conflict is influenced by a rational argument or by the threat of force. It is impossible, for instance, to know what proportion...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved