The Consilience of Induction; or, Bull Shit, Sherlock

[peristaltor]

Back in (IRRC) Philosophy 102, Logic, we learned the dirty little secret of Victorian literature. Sherlock Holmes sometimes got it wrong.

Comments

[atlasimpure]

This is brilliant.

[beachofdreams]

But you must ask: is the point of the post to prove global warming, or to show how it is proven if it is?

[peristaltor]

Ah, but you see, I've already done that.

As to the 2000 campaign, yes, blunders were made; but he had a lot of help pointing them out and even exasperating them. If you're keen, I've got a very revealing DVD that covers the 2000 Charlie Foxtrot.

It makes me sad.

[csn]

I recall reading that deduction was at this time in history sometimes use to also cover induction, though perhaps Doyle was just misappraising terminology. But I agree--in fact, what I find most interesting about Holmes and admire about him are his inductive qualities, which are highly intuitive. I think it is misleading that his exploits are shown as a series of deductive logical steps; in fact, his brilliance comes from his high degree of intuition and forensic and psychological matters, allowing him to fill in gaps which are far removed from what would be a "logical" step-wise process to most people./

[peristaltor]

I wholeheartedly agree. His intuitive inductions made the stories.