This is my first blog posting, and outside of
pop culture references the only experience I have with the concept is The Professional Blog of Doctor
John Watson from the
excellent BBC Series Sherlock,
which is a modern re-imagining of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's
hero. As a fan of detective stories I was quite taken with the show and
Sherlock's intuitive deductions, and as this blog will be relating to the
criminal justice field, what better topic to start with?
Sherlock Holmes's method of deduction is based on simple observation and reasoning and is actually a technique called "abductive reasoning”, and not deduction at all. In the short story A Scandal in Bohemia Sherlock was able to deduce that Watson had been in inclement weather and had a clumsy serving girl based solely off a glance at his shoes. When asked how he could know this Sherlock replied, “It is simplicity itself ... My eyes tell me
that on the inside of your left shoe, just where the firelight strikes it, the
leather is scored by six almost parallel cuts. Obviously they have been caused
by someone who has very carelessly scraped round the edges of the sole in order
to remove crusted mud from it. Hence, you see, my double deduction that you had
been out in vile weather, and that you had a particularly malignant
boot-slitting specimen of the London slavey.” As you can see, based on the powers of observation and logical reasoning Sherlock was able to display his prowess in deduction.
Next post I'll go into more detail about the differences between Deduction, Abduction, and Induction. Until then, may you observe, rather than simply see.
excellent and entertaining commentary with a high level of reasoning (show-off!!) argue for it, keep up the good work.
ReplyDelete