It is difficult sometimes to find humor in a political season, but two books by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein may do it. Their first tome is entitled “Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar …” and is subtitled “Understanding Philosophy through Jokes.”

You might ask, “What do philosophical jokes have to do with politics?” I’ll answer, “When has politics lately been other than a joke?” answering a question with a question and thus evading the issue, a standard political gambit.

We like to think of ourselves as rational beings, but that idea quickly vanishes when faced with questions of belief, such as creationism vs. evolution. “I know what I believe,” says one; “but is that based upon facts?” asks another. The true difference between these arguments is a matter of logic. One is deductive and the other is inductive.

Sherlock Holmes, as Cathcart and Klein state, is a prime inductive detective. He sees lots of supposedly unconnected bits of evidence, puts them together, and comes to a conclusion. “The problem, my dear Watson, is the barking of the dog,” Holmes said. “But the dog didn’t bark, Holmes,” said Watson. “Exactly,” said Holmes.

Charles Darwin was inductive also. Read his “The Voyage of the Beagle,” and you will see Darwin picking up pieces of evidence all over the globe, and it is only later he puts them together into his theory of evolution in a massive book of evidence.

Deduction is different. The logician starts with a general statement and then goes to the particular. Part of the problem with deduction is that there are many ways to err. After 9/11 it was assumed that Iraq was behind the catastrophe because Saddam Hussein had been our enemy for years. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, e.g. “After this on account of this.”

If you read Cathcart and Klein’s book, you will also learn about circular arguments, Zeno’s Paradox, the difference between a priori and a posteriori and other subtle philosophical terms. All of which you can then use in their next book, “Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington” or “Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes.”

The authors start with doubletalk based upon ignoring the issue, using the war in Iraq for examples. Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was famous for obscuring the issues. One of the reasons for attacking Iraq, Rumsfeld said, is that Iraq “had better targets” than Afghanistan.

This is like the guy looking for his keys under a streetlamp even though he had lost them over by a dark hedge, “Well,” he said, “the light is better here.” This is “ignoring the issue.”

You can also argue from hatred, “Saddam is a rat and a murderer,” or from ignorance. Saddam Hussein was accused of having weapons of mass destruction, even though it was not known if he truly did or not. Only later was the administration’s ignorance of that fact proven.

Then there are weasel words. Wiretapping becomes electronic intercepts; surge replaces escalation; opportunity scholarships are really vouchers. You can change whole sentences, too. Instead of saying “My mother is an ax murderer,” say, “My mother is a cutlery specialist;” or, “I am pro-life” instead of “I am anti-abortion,” one of the more brilliant political verbal switches I know.

I love when a politician uses a non sequitur, literally “It does not follow,” an attempt to connect two widely disparate ideas. Jerry Falwell tried to link gays with Tinky Winky because the Teletubbies character was purple and had a triangle on his head, both, in Falwell’s mind, gay symbols.

Two other non sequitur variations are ad hominem, “to the man,” and the “God is My Co-pilot” connection. The first is simply to attack another person directly. “You say I’m stupid? When your IQ reaches 50, you should sell!” or, “Don’t vote for Obama because he is black.”

Obviously if you have God on your side, you have a good thing going. Genghis Khan said that he was the “Flail of God,” and George W. Bush talked to a Higher Father than George Herbert Walker Bush before attacking Iraq, thus making the invasion OK.

The problem is that we have been having trouble with politicians and how they talk for so long we don’t know whom to believe. As we know: “Mistakes were made” (Ronald Reagan never admitting he knew about the Iran-Contra scandal). “It depends on what the meaning of the word is is” (Bill Clinton explaining what he meant when he said “There is nothing between us,” referring to his actions with Monica).

Cathcart and Klein’s books are humorous and thoughtful at the same time. One should keep in mind, though, that their favorite political philosopher is Will Rogers, who said, “There’s no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.”

Ralph Mohr taught English and Latin at Marshfield High School for 31 years. He can be reached at rmohr1565@charter.net.