Aired: 12/17/201301:47:55Expires: 12/31/2013 Rating: NR
"The fictional Sherlock Holmes was a scientist who used chemistry, bloodstains and minute traces of evidence to catch criminals. In an era when eyewitness reports and “smoking gun” evidence were needed to convict criminals, Sherlock Holmes’ crime-scene methods were revolutionary."
OK....let me begin and end with a "pet peeve" of mine when it comes to "Sherlock-eana": CONCEPTUAL CONFUSIONS!
I agree, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's imagination (via Sherlock) did indeed inform modern forensics. And if he had been given the opportunity to run the "Ripper" investigation, the killer might have been identified.
The constant narration about Sherlock/Doyle's *DEDUCTIVE* powers IS JUST PLAIN WRONG! Scientific/forensic procedures UTILIZE *INDUCTIVE* REASONING! [LOGIC 101, PBS!!] Only ONCE [that I noticed between my fuming in outrage and stunned disbelief at such blatant ignorance] was "induction" used in the narration correctly.
What's the big deal? Is this not a mere "potaato/potahto" issue? HELL NO!!!!!
Ahem [pedantic warning] --
You DEDUCE that "Socrates is mortal" from the premises that "All humans are mortal" and "Socrates is a human." No amount of evidence is even relevant to this argument! The conclusion is absolutely logically certain.
You INFER that Socrates most likely had had a pug nose ONLY based on EVIDENCE [mainly statuary]. The conclusion is ONLY more or less likely -- like ALL scientific findings.
Sherlock Holmes' reasoning was INDUCTIVE [NOT DEDUCTIVE]!