I use Swampman to illuminate the role of thought experiments in philosophy of science. Against Millikan and others, I argue that even outlandish thought experiments can shed light on science and scientific kinds, so long as we understand them as illustrations of scientific reasoning, not examples of scientific kinds. The logic of thought experiments, understood as illustrations, is analogous to the logic of common experimental paradigms in science, and allows Swampman to survive teleosemantic objections. So, in reviving Swampman, I also provide a framework for understanding how, why, and when thought experiments are informative about science and scientific kinds.