I don't know of any theory of humor that would even posit that there is a singular principle that could generate it. Your appealing to the same kinds of things in both cases, judgments about particular cases and trying to generalize from those judgments. So what you're saying is that you will proceed with the theory of humor as the ontologists proceed with their theories of ethics, no and all. And i think this is true, maybe to a lesser degree with humour. Like, you need to understand context in order to understand whether something's funny or not.
Dave and Tamler break the cardinal rule of comedy by trying to analyze it. What are the origins and functions of humor? Can a theory explain what makes us laugh? Is humor entirely subjective? Why would anyone find Mr. Bean funny? Plus, we lose some geek cred by confessing some iconic comedians that we never liked, and ask why the American Psychologist Association loves to torture people.
Links
Support Very Bad Wizards