Sherlock Holmes: Is It Deduction Or Induction?

[Immortalist]

[T]he "deductions" of Sherlock Holmes: I have ... been interested in
the discrepancy between "deduction" in detective mysteries and
"deduction" in the logic books. Doyle's use of the word "deduction"
only reflects how the word has been commonly used--not only by ordinary
people, but also by educated people. To most people, any kind of
inference is a "deduction."

I don't see that it helps to say that the common usage is "wrong" and
that the technical usage is "right." I would think that if one is
knowledgeable on a certain subject and wants to convey that information
to others, it would be best to point out that within that subject
matter the use of a word differs from common usage.

If I tell someone that I have "deduced" something, they think they know
what I mean. If I talk to someone about "induction," I have lost them.
They think they know what I mean if I talk about "learning from
experience." As with so many difficult words, one problem with
"induction" is that the word has been used in so many different ways.
"Induction" might mean:

* To elicit a theory.

* To verify a theory.

* To elicit a higher principle.

* To elicit an ordinary fact.

Supposedly the purpose of induction is to establish "first principles."
Yet the process by which an ordinary person establishes everyday
"facts" (e.g., the attributes of objects) falls right in line with
descriptions of "induction." It appears to me that induction in this
common form (or "epagoge," or whatever it ought to be called) does not
have to be an "act of reasoning"; at times it can be an automatic
process--a brain process that during the course of observation produces
"intuitions" for me without any effort on my part.

The kind of inference that Sherlock Holmes frequently used can be
typified in a statement that politicians are fond off "If it walks like
a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." In other words, "If it has
an attribute distinctive to that kind of thing, it is that thing."
Apparently we can take this a step further: "If it is that thing, then
it will have all of the other attributes of that thing." If it quacks,
it can swim. If it's Jack's voice on the phone, then it's that rascal
Jack at the other end of the line.

What is assumed in such cases is that the object has certain attributes
and that some of these attributes are distinctive to the object. What
we could use is a simple, non-convoluted description of this kind of
inference. Apparently some of C.S. Peirce's work pertains to the
matter.

Paul Christoffers
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_27/ai_108114825

Far from being only a matter of literary interest, the stories and
novels of the Sherlock Holmes series have been studied and commented by
scholars from the most varied scientific disciplines: criminology,
logic, epistemology, economics, psychology, and sociology.

The area of logic and epistemology has without doubt been focused on
the most. Holmes' investigative method - a fine example of Late
Nineteenth Century positivism - has been analysed and debated by
illustrious scholars and academics. The prevailing conclusion, which
contradicts the use of deductive logic on several occasions declared by
Holmes himself within the stories and most completely formulated in the
article The Book of Life, is that his way of proceeding corresponds
with a hybrid methodology. The investigative path sees a continuous
interaction and overlapping of induction and deduction, of theoretical
hypotheses and empirical evidence. In strictly epistemological terms,
"abduction" is perhaps the word which best describes Holmes'
proceeding. The term was originally formulated by Aristotle, while its
revival in modern logic is largely owed to Charles Peirce. Abduction
can be defined as a syllogism in which the second premise has only the
character of probability. Even if for other aspects similar to the
deductive process, the differences are considerable, starting with the
less certain character of the conclusion which can be reached, that can
never be superior to that of the second premise. In the literary field
we come across at least one other character - not an investigator
this time - who often resorts to this kind of reasoning: Voltaire's
Zadig. The scholars' opinions on the exact classification of
Holmes' method vary considerably, but abduction seems to receive the
largest support. The only commonly accepted point seems to be the fact
that it is definitely not a deductive process. The concept of
induction, the process which from the gathering of empirical
information comes to the formulation of a theoretical conclusion (law,
empirical generalisation), describes the followed path much better. The
deductive process is actually contradicted and condemned, with various
formulations, by Holmes himself in several stories: "It is a capital
mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the
judgment (STUD)"; "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has
data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of
theories to suit facts (SCAN)"; "Data! data! data! I can't make bricks
without clay (COPP)"; "It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance
of the facts (SECO)"; "The temptation to form premature theories upon
insufficient data is the bane of our profession (VALL)".

The epistemological expressions so frequent in Holmes' stories -
theory, hypothesis, deduction, verification, inference - are
therefore often used somewhat loosely. However, the occasional improper
use of the term "deduction" by someone who is not an expert in logic or
social sciences, even for someone as precise and methodical as Holmes,
can easily be justified. In everyday language the term is often used in
a rather approximate sense, describing any analytical process based on
logical concatenations. However, the fact remains that Holmes does
actually not adopt the sociological perspective of grounded theory -
the construction of a theory on the sole basis of the empirical facts
available, without a precise starting hypothesis - which on several
occasions he declares to apply. Holmes' actions are almost always
inspired by a precise working hypothesis, based on the few facts which
are initially available to him and on his previous experiences with
similar cases and perfected as the analysis of the available empirical
elements proceeds. The initial hypothesis has been proved wrong on
several occasions: even if the investigator professes many times to
have identified the solution to a mystery or the right trail as soon as
the person who submitted the case entered the Baker Street room or
finished his account of the situation, Holmes' investigations are
anything but free of false trails and blunders. The myth of the
infallible detective is just that - a myth. Irene Adler docet. Even
if he is considered to be the paradigmatic example of rational and
scientific investigation, Holmes is further not at all dogmatic in his
positivism, such as when he states that "imagination is often the
mother of truth (VALL)" or that "the impression of a woman may be more
valuable than the conclusion of an analytical reasoner (TWIS)". In
actual fact, in the solving of various cases elements such as
imagination or intuition proved much more important and useful to
Holmes than the detective would like to admit. It is for this reason,
and because the end result of the process is considered more important
than the method used to reach it, that various scholars consider him to
be a forerunner of Paul Feyerabend's methodological anarchism.

Holmes' investigations are largely regarded and of absolute interest
also as examples of the recourse to the technique of observation,
frequently used in disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and
social psychology, as well as in clinical diagnosis. In most cases it
is a naturalistic, non invasive kind of observation, even if the person
being observed is usually aware of the profession of the observer. In
other occasions it is a participant kind of observation, where the
observer interacts actively and in a position of anonymity with the
other components of a particular group. Holmes' skill in disguise and
the knowledge of usages and customs of a wide range of social classes
explains his extreme ease in entering and passing unobserved in most
various contexts. He could, for example, wander around the worst areas
of London or mix up with the domestic staff of people involved in his
investigations without arousing the slightest suspicion. If Holmes'
ability to follow trails and examine material objects is extraordinary,
his most stimulating and surprising deductions are without doubt those
regarding people. On the basis of the observation of their physical
characteristics and dressing Holmes could deduce, with nearly absolute
precision, an amazing number of attributes: social class, profession,
civil status, present and previous illnesses, sight problems and much
more. He could also understand and predict their behaviour in the
different social situations fairly accurately. Reading Holmes'
stories could therefore prove excellent practice for those intending to
use these research techniques, which are currently popular especially
in researches which focuses on the participants of particular social
events (concerts, exhibitions, meetings, museum visitors). The
usefulness of these techniques has been much discussed and diversely
appraised over the course of history of the social sciences. If the
behavioural movement - at its height between 1930 and 1960 -
considered the observed information the fundamental empirical element
and starting point for every further scientific analysis, many scholars
subsequently pointed out the incongruities between manifest behaviour
and the intentions and convictions of the subject, attributing greater
value to his direct declarations, to be gathered through techniques
such as the structured questionnaire or the personal interview.
Behaviourism tended moreover to deny or consider the will of the
subject irrelevant, focusing on the contingent elements - conditions
and means - of the concrete social situation in which the action
takes place. This usually ends with the human action appearing a simple
and inevitable reflex of given environmental conditions. In fact, the
observable behaviour of the individual and his subjective
interpretation continue to play, even today, an important role in
social sciences, mainly as a starting point for other kinds of
analyses. In practice, it is the spark that may push a scholar to deal
with a particular social issue which appears to be significant in his
eyes. And it stands to reason that those who are more capable of
observing the contemporary world are also better equipped to understand
and explain it. Another just as significant and modern aspect of
Holmes' method is the fact that the entire analytical process is
public, and therefore verifiable (falsifiable) and hypothetically
replicable by all interested persons. Holmes often points out that his
methods are accessible to everyone, as long as they are equipped with
spirit of observation and capacity of logical analysis. His
"challenges" with Watson make it though quite clear just how
differently these abilities can be developed in different people.

Overturning the perspective of analysis, and moving on to a sector of
study which is decidedly less developed than the
logical-epistemological one, various - direct and indirect -
references to social sciences are made by Holmes throughout the
stories. In his list of Sherlock Holmes' intellectual strengths and
limits, social science is a field that Watson could have classified as
"average". In this classification, occurring in the initial stage of
their friendship, the doctor appears however concentrated mainly on the
possession of notions of a purely formal kind. Only in this way can he
consider his comrade's knowledge in philosophy to be insignificant,
when we know that Holmes' opinions on nearly every aspect of social
reality are very clearly defined and his observations on the human
condition always acute. In the field of social sciences Holmes relies
on notions which are certainly not those of an expert, but which are
nevertheless superior to those of a man of average education. So, for
example, he incidentally states one of the basic principles of
sociological science and statistics: "While the individual man is an
insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty.
You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you
can say with precision what an average number will be up to.
Individuals vary, but percentages remain constant (SIGN)". Even if some
of his judgements seem to be influenced and conditioned by the beliefs
of the period, such as certain attitudes towards women and the lower
social classes, Holmes appears to be fairly distant from that
biological determinism so popular at the time. However, in some
passages there are unquestionably considerations which appear us today
outdated and scientifically unsustainable, such as when he establishes
a relationship between intellectual capacity and cranial dimensions
(BLUE) or mentions the inheritability of certain behavioural
characteristics (BOSC, FINA, EMPT). At the same time Holmes appears to
be decidedly oriented towards the sociology of action (methodological
individualism), historically in opposition to sociological theories
which focuses on the functional needs of the social system. Holmes sees
the man as a being who is intrinsically free to make his own choices,
right or wrong, but not imposed in a coercive way by an external force
existing independently of the individuals and which evolves based on
its own dynamics. The main consequence is that he never loses sight of
individual responsibility, and judges people by their concrete actions
and not on the basis of their environmental or biological background.
On the other hand there does not seem to be any particular proximity to
the dominant sociological trends in Late Nineteenth Century England,
the Organicism/Evolutionism of Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism,
even if the political and cultural climate of a period inevitably
influences the person who lives immersed in it.

Given Holmes' line of business, the sociological subject which is
dealt with the most is obviously social deviance. Even in confronting
this topic the basic approach mentioned above is largely confirmed. A
typically sociological consideration made by Holmes is for example that
on the relationship between deviance and social control, even if
apparently contradictory with regards to the assumption of a positive
correlation between housing density and crime rate: "You look at these
scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at
them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their
isolation and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there
[...] They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief,
Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys
in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the
smiling and beautiful countryside [...] But the reason is very obvious.
The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot
accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured
child, or the thud of a drunkard's blow, does not beget sympathy and
indignation among the neighbours [...] But look at these lonely houses,
each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant
folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty,
the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such
places, and none the wiser (COPP)". Holmes' conception of social
deviance is, on the whole, fairly balanced and "modern": there is
certainly a strong attention for the social context in which the
criminal act takes place, but this still comes back in the end to a
conscious and deliberate individual action. Nevertheless, some evident
anomalies and contradictions, at least from the point of view of the
contemporary observer, such as the occasional references to the
inheritability of psychic and behavioural traits, remain. These however
never fully explain the criminal phenomenon, as demonstrated by the
total absence of investigative methods which refer to such theories.
Even when Holmes expresses concise and debatable opinions these appear
to be dictated more by his extensive personal experience than by a
dogmatic adhesion to the socially dominating opinions of the period. In
spite of the emphasis on the scientific and logical nature of his
investigations, the fundamental importance of common sense remains a
point which Holmes often refers to, finally defining his profession "a
simple art, which is but systematized common sense (BLAN)".

As opposed to the typically technical skills, it is rather difficult to
credit the social sciences with the solving of any of Holmes' cases.
However, this does not mean that when confronting his investigations
Holmes was not influenced and aided by his conception of man and
society. His vision of human and social reality is effectively one of
the most defined in all detective literature, uniting strictly
scientific convictions with other of an eminently philosophical nature.
But even Holmes has no definitive answers, as he himself recalls us in
The Adventure of the Cardboard Box: "What object is served by this
circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or
else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable. But what
end? There is the great standing perennial problem to which human
reason is as far from an answer as ever". And a veil of sadness and
disenchantment is not extraneous to Holmes' philosophy of life, which
shines through every time his intellectual energies are not
transitorily absorbed by a case which must be solved: "Is not all life
pathetic and futile? We reach. We grasp. And what is left in our hands
at the end? A shadow. Or worse than a shadow - misery (RETI)".

http://associazioni.comune.firenze.it/holmes/inglese/ing_scienzesociali.htm

[extr...@hotmail.com]

Sherlock Holmes and Probabilistic Induction

(Q0) "From a drop of water," said the writer, "a logician could infer
the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or
heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of
which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it. Like all
other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only
be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow
any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it. " [A Study
in Scarlet, pt. 1, ch. 2] Sherlock Holmes.

We can find many words in Holmes stories which may be used as an
evidence for showing that he was a logician. First of all, he
frequently characterizes himself as a logician. Quotation Q0 is one of
such examples. Here, he speaks of what a logician can do, as well as of
what a logician should do. It is certainly a typical task of a logician
to do "deduction and analysis," and he or she should work hard in order
to be a good logician!

And secondly, many of his words clearly show his stance as a logician.
The following quotations are typical examples:

(Q1) "Some facts should be suppressed, or at least, a just sense of
proportion should be observed in treating them. The only point in the
case which deserved mention was the curious analytical reasoning from
effects to causes, by which I succeeded in unravelling it." [The Sign
of Four, ch.1]

(Q2) "it is not really difficult to construct a series of inferences,
each dependent upon its predecessor and each simple in itself. If,
after doing so, one simply knocks out all the central inferences and
presents one's audience with the starting-point and the conclusion, one
may produce a startling, though possibly a meretricious, effect. " [The
Adventure of the Dancing Men]

Quotation Q1 shows where his interest is, when he reads a report of
criminal investigations; and since he is only interested in the method
of reasoning, it is clear that his stance is nothing but a logician's.

Quotation Q2 shows, again, his stance as a logician, because he
analyzes a certain effect of logical reasoning; and his analysis and
observation touch upon some of the essential characteristics of logical
reasoning. Each single step of logical reasoning is so easy, so
obvious; but by combining such easy steps two or three, you lose sight
of the necessary connection between the premisses and the conclusion.
Take an extreme example: before 1931, who could see such a result as
Goedel's Theorem may be obtained?

Thus, my hypothesis that Holmes was a good logician seems very
promising. But its proof may not be sufficient; so let us continue our
examination, getting into more specific features of his reasoning and
his opinions about what he is doing.

------------------------------------------

3. Key words of Holmes's theory of reasoning

There are several key words when Holmes characterizes his own method of
reasoning.

Method by elimination, method of exclusion

(Q3) "By the method of exclusion, I had arrived at this result, for no
other hypothesis would meet the facts." [A Study in Scarlet, pt. 2, ch.
7]

(Q4) "You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How
often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" [The Sign of
Four, ch. 6]

[Let me give you a simple example of this method. In the beginning part
of The Sign of Four, Holmes surprizes Watson by telling him that Watson
went to the post-office in order to send a telegram. His reasoning may
be put in the following form:

(1) A v B v C (this is already proved from other sources);

(2) -A (from observational evidence);

(3) -B (from observational evidence);

(4) therefore, C (conclusion).

(Let A, B, C mean, respectively, "Watson went to the post-office in
order to send a letter"; or "in order to buy stamps or postcards"; or
"in order to send a telegram.")

This seems simple and perfectly all right. But Holmes's eliminative
method may not be as simple as this, if we want to take into
consideration the link between the three premisses and their evidence,
which may be probabilistic. Notice that in (Q4), eliminative method is
somehow combined with the consideration of probability or
improbability.]

Next, it is interesting to notice that Holmes seldom uses the word
"induction," when he speaks of his own method. Instead, he prefers the
word "hypothesis."

Hypothesis

(Q5) "I have devised seven separate explanations, each of which would
cover the facts as far as we know them. But which of these is correct
can only be determined by the fresh information which we shall no doubt
find waiting for us." [The Adventure of the Copper Beeches]

(Q6) "Where is he, then?"

"I have already said that he must have gone to King's Pyland or to
Mapleton. He is not at King's Pyland. Therefore he is at Mapleton. Let
us take that as a working hypothesis and see what it leads us to."
[Silver Blaze]

So far, even a layman can understand what Holmes wanted to say. But we
need good philosophical knowledge in order to understand the following
words:

Analytical reasoning, synthetic reasoning (reasoning backward,
reasoning forward)

(Q7) "I have already explained to you that what is out of the common is
usually a guide rather than a hindrance. In solving a problem of this
sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very
useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practise
it much. In the everyday affairs of life it is more useful to reason
forward, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who
can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically."

"Most people, if you describe a train of events to them, will tell you
what the result would be. They can put those events together in their
minds, and argue from them that something will come to pass. There are
few people, however, who, if told them a result, would be able to
evolve from their own inner consciousness what the steps were which led
up to that result. This power is what I mean when I talk of reasoning
backward, or analytically." [A Study in Scarlet, pt.2, ch.7]

Comments: As you may well know, Cartesian analysis is a procedure like
this: given a problem to be solved, we examine the conditions to be
fulfilled, and divide them into simpler conditions which are easier to
solve (in Descartes's words, "divide each of the difficulties I was
examining into as many parts as possible and as is required to solve
them best"). We go backward, so to speak, from the given problem to the
simpler and solvable constituents. In the preceding quotation, Holmes
explains a similar procedure in terms of cause-effect relations; i.e.,
given a problem consisting of a number of facts (effects), we go
backward in search for their unknown causes. (Presumably, Holmes
adopted this way of explanation because this was easier for Dr. Watson
to understand!)

[By the way, eliminative method and analysis are closely related. We
can show this by means of Jevons's idea of logical alphabets. For
example, given three propositions A, B, C, we can form logical
alphabets in the following way: for each proposition, there are two
possibilities, either affirmation or negation; so let us signify the
former by a Capital letter, the latter by a lower case letter. And
further, let us understand that juxtaposing two or more letters means a
logical conjunction. Then, we can express all the possibilities out of
these three propositions by the following eight conjunctions, which are
Jevons's logical alphabets in this case:

ABC, ABc, AbC, Abc, aBC, aBc, abC, abc.

And these correspond to Descartes's "as many parts as is required to
solve them best." The process of reasoning is essentially eliminative
in that, given any information, this information eliminates some of the
logical alphabets; and what remains after all premisses are
represented, that is the conclusion. This process takes place within
the framework of Cartesian analysis.]

We finally come to the most important key word:

Balance of probabilities

(Q8) "Ah,that is good luck. I could only say what was the balance of
probability. I did not at all expect to be so accurate."

"But it was not mere guesswork?"

"No, no: I never guess. It is a shocking habit---destructive to the
logical faculty. What seems strange to you is only so because you do
not follow my train of thought or observe the small facts upon which
large inferences may depend." [The Sign of Four, ch. 1]

(Q9) "We are coming now rather into the region of guesswork," said Dr.
Mortimer.

"Say, rather, into the region where we balance probabilities and choose
the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination, but we
have always some material basis on which to start our speculation."
[The Hound of the Baskervilles, ch. 4]

Scientific use of the imagination

See the last quotation above.

We have to notice that Sherlock Holmes is contrasting his method, which
essentially depends on the balance of probabilities, with "mere
guesswork," which he despises as destructive to the logical faculty. He
is saying that his method is logical and scientific, although it might
seem uncertain or unstable to a layman, like Watson or Mortimer.

It should be clear by now, from these examinations of key words, that
Sherlock Holmes's method of reasoning has a firmer structure than you
might have imagined at first sight. Is there any theory of scientific
method which captures all or almost all of these features? Let us next
see some of the 19th century methodologists.

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/holmes_1.html
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000167/00/holmes.html

[Arturo Magidin]

In article <1160419739....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[T]he "deductions" of Sherlock Holmes: I have ... been interested in
>the discrepancy between "deduction" in detective mysteries and
>"deduction" in the logic books. Doyle's use of the word "deduction"
>only reflects how the word has been commonly used--not only by ordinary
>people, but also by educated people. To most people, any kind of
>inference is a "deduction."

As I recall, "deduction" means reaching conclusions about particulars
given general principles. "Induction" means to reach conclusions about
generalities given particulars.

Holmes is using deduction, because he goes from general principles
(e.g., that wearing a certain kind of hat denotes frugality) to
deducing things about the specific person or situation in front of
him.

However, these are not the ways in which "deduction" and "deducing"
are used in everyday language. Mostly because people don't know the
technical meaning of the terms.

(As it happens, "mathematical induction" is really a kind of
deduction, because from a general principle we deduce that a property
holds in specific instances).

--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org

[Don H]

"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160419739....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

# You could almost devote an entire chapter in a book on logic to "the art
of detective reasoning".
How does a "detect-ive" function?
A "crime scene" involves a mystery - whodunit? And all we may have are
clues, at the scene.
Sherlock Holmes emphasised the importance of observation; getting all the
facts, large or small, by examination of the crime scene, free of
contamination.
He also insisted on - not theorising too soon, before all data was
obtained.
But then imagination was needed in forming hypotheses. All the facts
must fit; if there are anomalies then your hypothesis must either be
modified or discarded.
How does "detective reasoning" differ from normal? Mainly in going from
effects back to causes; a reverse, or analytic process. This may involve a
prior knowledge, based on generalisations obtained form Induction, but is,
itself, a Deductive process.
In one story, Holmes observes the spatula nature of a woman's fingertips,
and deduces she must be either a typist or music teacher by profession - and
opts for music teacher, because of her ethereal expression.
A bit far-fetched? Maybe. And relies on a generalisation of the kind
"Only professional (female) typists or music teachers have spatula
fingertips." - which could well be wrong. But then Holmes was always
prepared to take the risk; confirming his assumption by either further data,
or directly asking the woman herself.
A detective also deals with "motive, means, and opportunity" in solving a
whodunit; and that's a whole field of study; but uses the same technique.
Most of us, in daily life, observe causes and note their effects; a
"forward" process. It is more difficult to reason from particular clues
"backwards" to their origin; from effect to cause - mainly as, while the
effect is seen in the present, the cause(s) may be lost in the past, and
have to be re-discovered.
=============================
The young Arthur Conan Doyle was a medical student at Edinburgh, and his
mentor was Dr. Joseph Bell, from whom Doyle learned most of the techniques
which he later applied to the character of Holmes.
Both Holmes and Watson represent two sides of Doyle's own character, as is
claimed by Julian Symons in an Introduction to "His Last Bow", 1974 (Pan).
======================================

[Peter_Smith]

Holmes's reasonings are usually "inferences to the best explanation".
Here's some data (in the best sort of story, a very puzzling
combination of data that "makes no sense"). Then here's an explanation
(which makes everything fall into place).

But it is (usually) at least logically possible that the explanation is
false. (That logic point is exploited by post-Holmsian stories where an
apparently convincing explanation of the murders is arrived at, only
for another murder to happen when the initially accused has a cast-iron
alibi.) If we use "deduction" in the logician's sense of absolutely
watertight inference -- where if the premisses are true, it is simply
impossible for the conclusion to be false -- then the detective's
"deductions", i.e. his inferences to the best explanation, are not
deductions. (Of course, it's just by conventional stipulation that
logicians nowadays use "deduction" in the narrow sense: what matters is
the distinction that is thereby marked between inferences to tbe best
explanation which are defeasible, and strict logical inferences which
aren't.)

[Immortalist]

I agree and maybe Holmes was just using the language of lawyers and the
courts of the times. I agree with one of the authors I pasted also that
at one time deduction meant one thing in normal language, (inference)
and another in formal philosophy. What would Holmes do if he were
called into the court-room as a whitness and then upon
cross-examination he was questioned about his usage of "deduction,"
what word would he use himself to clarify the difference between
necessary truths and theories?

Reminds me of this debate;

W. V. Quine's paper Two Dogmas of Empiricism, published 1951, is one of
the most celebrated papers of twentieth century philosophy in the
analytic tradition. The paper is an attack on two central parts of the
logical positivists' philosophy. One is the distinction between
analytic truths and synthetic truths, explained by Quine as truths
grounded only in meanings and independent of facts, and truths grounded
in facts. The other is reductionism, which is the theory that each
meaningful statement gets its meaning from some logical construction of
terms which refers exclusively to immediate experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism

Quine's "Two Dogmas" is a concerted attack on the analytic/synthetic
distinction. At first this might seem to be a fairly easily dispensable
part of the positivist picture. But Quine shows that it is in fact
crucial to the positivist view that theoretical sentences are definable
in terms of observation sentences, and thus also to their defense of
reductionism and foundationalism.

http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/language/quine_two_dogmas.html

In "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" Quine argues there is no clear
distinction among statements according to whether their truth-value
depends on their empirical or extra-linguistic or factual content.
While he's right that some synthetic statements are more synthetic than
others, and that the vagueness of definitions can make it hard to tell
whether a given statement is analytic, he's wrong to think that these
two points imply that "a boundary between analytic and synthetic
statement simply has not been drawn".

http://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~jmikhael/Coherentism.htm

- A priori/a posteriori, analytic/synthetic, necessary/contingent

...three ways to characterize statements that are of particular
interest to the philosopher: each statement is (i) either necessary or
contingent, (ii) either analytic or synthetic, (iii) either a priori or
empirical (or a posteriori). We shall now take a brief look at how
these three distinctions are interrelated.

First, notice that these three distinctions pertain to three distinct
aspects of a statement.

1. The necessary/contingent distinction concerns the modal status of a
statement. To say that a statement is necessarily true is to say that
it must be true or that it is true in all possible worlds. A statement
is contingently true in case it just happens to be true because of the
way the actual world is.

2. The analytic/synthetic distinction concerns the basis of a
statement's truth or falsity. To say that a statement is analytically
true is to say that its truth is grounded solely in the meaning of its
terms and the laws of logic. A statement is synthetically true just in
case its truth is not grounded exclusively on the meaning of its terms
and on the laws of logic.

3. The a priori/a posteriori distinction concerns the epistemic status
of a statement. To say that a statement is true a priori is to say that
its truth can be known without appeal to experience. A statement is
true a posteriori just in case its truth can only be known by relying
on experience.

Having noted the differences between these three distinctions, consider
their similarities. The most striking observation about these three
distinctions is that they seem to divide up the set of statements into
exactly the same subclasses. That is, we can use each one of the three
distinctions to divide the set of statements into two classes: the one
consists of necessary, analytic, and a priori statements; the other
contains contingent, synthetic, and a posteriori statements. But this
neat division of statements into two groups is not universally
accepted. The most notable dissenters have been Immanuel Kant and, in
our times, Saul Kripke. Kant argued that some statements are necessary,
synthetic and a priori; for example, "Every event has a cause." Ever
since, "the problem of the synthetic a priori" has occupied a fairly
central position on the philosophical stage. Recently, Kripke argued
that some statements are necessary, synthetic, and a posteriori. "Water
is H2O," "Heat is mean molecular energy," and other such theoretical
identifications are examples of such a posteriori necessities.

Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/

[Immortalist]

Arturo Magidin wrote:
> In article <1160419739....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[T]he "deductions" of Sherlock Holmes: I have ... been interested in
> >the discrepancy between "deduction" in detective mysteries and
> >"deduction" in the logic books. Doyle's use of the word "deduction"
> >only reflects how the word has been commonly used--not only by ordinary
> >people, but also by educated people. To most people, any kind of
> >inference is a "deduction."
>
>
> As I recall, "deduction" means reaching conclusions about particulars
> given general principles. "Induction" means to reach conclusions about
> generalities given particulars.
>
> Holmes is using deduction, because he goes from general principles
> (e.g., that wearing a certain kind of hat denotes frugality) to
> deducing things about the specific person or situation in front of
> him.
>
> However, these are not the ways in which "deduction" and "deducing"
> are used in everyday language. Mostly because people don't know the
> technical meaning of the terms.
>
> (As it happens, "mathematical induction" is really a kind of
> deduction, because from a general principle we deduce that a property
> holds in specific instances).
>

Two views of Deduction & Induction:

View 1: conclusion;
Deduction = infers particular from general truths
Induction = infers general from particular truths

View 2: conclusion;
Deduction = follows with absolute necessity
Induction = follows with some degree of probability

In defense of view 2:

Deduction and Induction From
Introduction to Logic Irving M. Copi
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130749214/

1.6 Deduction and Induction

Arguments are traditionally divided into two different types, deductive
and inductive. Every argument involves the claim (noted earlier) that
its premisses provide some grounds for the truth of its conclusion, but
only a deductive argument involves the claim that its premisses provide
conclusive grounds for its conclusion. When the reasoning in a
deductive argument is correct, we call that argument valid; when the
reasoning of a deductive argument is incorrect, we call that argument
invalid.

We may therefore define validity as follows. A deductive argument is
valid when its premisses, if true, do provide conclusive grounds for
the truth of its conclusion. In a valid deductive argument (but not in
an inductive argument), premisses and conclusion are so related that it
is absolutely impossible for the premisses to be true unless the
conclusion is true also.

In every deductive argument, either the premisses succeed in providing
conclusive grounds for the truth of the conclusion, or they do not
succeed. Therefore, every deductive argument is either valid or
invalid. This is a point of some importance: If a deductive argument is
not valid, it must be invalid; if it is not invalid, it must be valid.
But note that the terms "valid" and "invalid" do not apply to inductive
arguments; for inductive arguments, other terms of appraisal are
required.

In the realm of deductive logic, the central task is to clarify the
relation between premisses and conclusion in valid arguments, and thus
to allow us to discriminate valid from invalid arguments...

An inductive argument makes a very different claim: not that its
premisses give conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion, but
only that its premisses provide some support for that conclusion.
Inductive arguments, therefore, cannot be "valid" or "invalid" in the
sense in which these terms are applied to deductive arguments. Of
course, inductive arguments may be evaluated as better or worse,
according to the degree of support given to their conclusions by their
premisses. Thus, the greater the likelihood, or probability, that its
premisses confer on its conclusion, the greater the merit of an
inductive argument. But that likelihood, even when the premisses are
all true, must fall short of certainty. The theory of induction and the
methods of calculating probabilities are presented in Part 3 of this
book.

The distinction between deductive and inductive arguments is sometimes
drawn in a different way-centering on the relative generality of their
premisses and conclusions. Deductive inferences, it is sometimes said,
move from the general to the particular, while inductive inferences
move from the particular to the general. On analysis, this way of
distinguishing them proves unsatisfactory. ["William Whewell, in The
Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840), put it thus: ". . . in
Deduction we infer particular from general truths; while in Induction
we infer general from particular."]

In that tradition, the classical example of a deductive argument:

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

does indeed have a particular conclusion, inferred validly from two
premisses of which the first is a general or universal proposition.
[The term "particular" was used by Whewell, and other logicians in his
tradition, to refer to propositions about a single thing (e.g.,
Socrates) as well as to propositions about some but not necessarily all
members of a given class (e.g., some humans). More recent logical
practice uses the phrase "particular propositions" to refer only to the
latter group. At this point, we are examining Whewell's view and
therefore follow his usage.] It is also true that a very common form of
inductive argument is one in which a general or universal conclusion is
inferred from a group of premisses, all of which are particular, as in
this example:

Socrates is human and mortal.
Xanthippe is human and mortal
Sappho is human and mortal.
Therefore probably all humans are mortal.

But this method of distinguishing between deduction and induction does
not always work. The difficulty lies in the fact that a valid deductive
argument may have universal propositions for its conclusion as well as
for its premisses, as in:

All animals are mortal.
All humans are animals.
Therefore all humans are mortal.

And a valid deductive argument may have particular propositions for its
premisses as well as for its conclusion, as in:

If Socrates is human then Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is human.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Moreover, an inductive argument need not rely only on particular
premisses but may have universal (i.e., general) propositions for its
premisses as well for its conclusions, as in:

All cows are mammals and have lungs.
All whales are mammals and have lungs.
All humans are mammals and have lungs.
Therefore probably all mammals have lungs.

And further, an inductive argument may have a particular proposition as
its conclusion, as in:

Hitler was a dictator and was ruthless.
Stalin was a dictator and was ruthless.
Castro is a dictator.
Therefore Castro is probably ruthless.

These counterexamples show that it is not satisfactory to characterize
deductive arguments as those in which particular conclusions are
inferred from general premisses; nor is it satisfactory to characterize
inductive arguments as those in which general conclusions are inferred
from particular premisses.

The fundamental difference between these two kinds of argument lies in
the claims that are made about the relations between premisses and
conclusion. Deductive arguments are those in which a very strict or
close relationship is claimed to hold between the premisses and the
conclusions. If a deductive argument is valid, then, given the truth of
its premisses, its conclusion must be true no matter what else may be
the case.

For example, if it is true that all humans are mortal, and if it is
true that Socrates is a human, then it must be true that Socrates is
mortal no matter what else may be true in the world and no matter what
other premisses are added or other information discovered. If we find
that Socrates is ugly, or that angels are immortal, or that cows give
milk, this finding affects the validity of the argument not one bit;
the conclusion that Socrates is mortal follows from any enlarged set of
premisses with deductive certainty, just as it did from the two
premisses originally given. If an argument is valid, nothing additional
in the world can make it more valid; if a conclusion is validly
inferred from some set of premisses, nothing can be added to that set
to make that conclusion follow more validly or more strictly or more
logically.

But the relation between premisses and conclusion claimed for even the
best inductive argument is much less strict and very different in kind.
Consider the following inductive argument:

Most corporation lawyers are conservatives.
Barbara Shane is a corporation lawyer.
Therefore Barbara Shane is probably a conservative.

This is a pretty good inductive argument; its first premiss is true,
and if its second premiss is also true, its conclusion is more likely
true than false. But in this case, if new premisses are added to the
original pair the resulting argument may be substantially weakened or
(depending on the premisses added) strengthened. Suppose we add the
premiss that

Barbara Shane is an officer of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU).

and also add the (true) premiss that:

Most officers of the ACLU are not conservatives.

Now the conclusion [that Barbara Shane is a conservative] no longer
seems very probable; the original inductive argument has been greatly
weakened by the presence of this additional information about Barbara
Shane. Indeed, if the final premiss were transformed into the universal
proposition:

No officers of the ACLU are conservatives.

the opposite of the original conclusion would now follow deductively,
that is, validly, from the set of premisses affirmed.

On the other hand, if we enlarge the original set of premisses by
adding the following additional premisses instead:

Barbara Shane served in the cabinet of President Ronald Reagan.

and

Barbara Shane has long been an officer of the National Rifle
Association.

then the original conclusion follows with a greater likelihood from
this enlarged set of premisses than it did from the original set.

The strength of the claim about the relation between the premisses and
the conclusion of the argument is the nub of the difference between
deductive and inductive arguments. We characterize the two types of
arguments as follows: A deductive argument is one whose conclusion is
claimed to follow from its premisses with absolute necessity, this
necessity not being a matter of degree and not depending in any way on
whatever else may be the case; in sharp contrast, an inductive argument
is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premisses only
with probability, this probability being a matter of degree and
dependent upon what else may be the case.

Although probability is the essence of the relation between premisses
and conclusion in inductive arguments, such arguments do not always
acknowledge explicitly that their conclusions are inferred only with
some degree of probability. On the other hand, the mere presence of the
word "probability" within an argument is no sure indication that the
argument is inductive, because there are some strictly deductive
arguments about probabilities themselves. Arguments of this kind, in
which the probability of a certain combination of events is deduced
from the probabilities of other events, are discussed in Chapter 14.

SUMMARY OF SECTION 1.6

In this section, we discuss the essential nature of deductive and of
inductive arguments. The core of the difference between deductive and
inductive arguments lies in the strength of the claim that is made
about the relation between the premisses of the argument and its
conclusion.

In deductive arguments, the conclusion is claimed to follow from its
premisses with absolute necessity; in inductive arguments, the
conclusion is claimed to follow from its premisses only with some
degree of probability.

A deductive argument is valid if its premisses do provide conclusive
proof of its conclusion; otherwise it is invalid. But the terms
"validity" and "invalidity" do not apply to inductive arguments, which
are appraised with other terms.

The addition of new premisses may alter the strength of an inductive
argument, but a deductive argument, if valid, cannot be made more valid
or invalid by the addition of any premisses.

Introduction to Logic
by Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0130749214/qid=1095180612/

[Immortalist]

Don H wrote:
> "Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160419739....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > [T]he "deductions" of Sherlock Holmes: I have ... been interested in
> > the discrepancy between "deduction" in detective mysteries and
> > "deduction" in the logic books. Doyle's use of the word "deduction"
> > only reflects how the word has been commonly used--not only by ordinary
> > people, but also by educated people. To most people, any kind of
> > inference is a "deduction."
> >

.....>

> http://associazioni.comune.firenze.it/holmes/inglese/ing_scienzesociali.htm
> >
>
> # You could almost devote an entire chapter in a book on logic to "the art
> of detective reasoning".
> How does a "detect-ive" function?
> A "crime scene" involves a mystery - whodunit? And all we may have are
> clues, at the scene.

Very good! It is like he was a Scientist, a Social Scientist, well
social science was all the rage at the time, you see my dear Watson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences
http://www.sherlockian.net/canon/

A Scandal in Bohemia

To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom
heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she
eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that
he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions,
and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but
admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect
reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as
a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He
never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer.
They were admirable things for the observer -- excellent for draw-
ing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained
teasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely
adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which
might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a
sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power
lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a
nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him,
and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and ques-
tionable memory.
I had seen little of Holmes lately. My marriage had drifted us
away from each other. My own complete happiness, and the
home-centred interests which rise up around the man who first
finds himself master of his own establishment, were sufficient to
absorb all my attention, while Holmes, who loathed every form
of society with his whole Bohemian soul, remained in our lodg-
ings in Baker Street, buried among his old books, and alternating
from week to week between cocaine and ambition, the drowsi-
ness of the drug, and the fierce energy of his own keen nature.
He was still, as ever, deeply attracted by the study of crime, and
occupied his immense faculties and extraordinary powers of
observation in following out those clues, and clearing up those
mysteries which had been abandoned as hopeless by the official
police. From time to time I heard some vague account of his
doings: of his summons to Odessa in the case of the Trepoff
murder, of his clearing up of the singular tragedy of the Atkinson
brothers at Trincomalee, and finally of the mission which he had
accomplished so delicately and successfully for the reigning
family of Holland. Beyond these signs of his activity, however,
which I merely shared with all the readers of the daily press, I
knew little of my former friend and companion.
One night -- it was on the twentieth of March, 1888 -- I was
returning from a journey to a patient (for I had now returned to
civil practice), when my way led me through Baker Street. As I
passed the well-remembered door, which must always be associ-
ated in my mind with my wooing, and with the dark incidents of
the Study in Scarlet, I was seized with a keen desire to see
Holmes again, and to know how he was employing his extraordi-
nary powers. His rooms were brilliantly lit, and, even as I
looked up, I saw his tall, spare figure pass twice in a dark
silhouette against the blind. He was pacing the room swiftly,
eagerly, with his head sunk upon his chest and his hands clasped
behind him. To me, who knew his every mood and habit, his
attitude and manner told their own story. He was at work again.
He had risen out of his drug-created dreams and was hot upon
the scent of some new problem. I rang the bell and was shown
up to the chamber which had formerly been in part my own.
His manner was not effusive. It seldom was; but he was glad,
I think, to see me. With hardly a word spoken, but with a kindly
eye, he waved me to an armchair, threw across his case of
cigars, and indicated a spirit case and a gasogene in the corner.
Then he stood before the fire and looked me over in his singular
introspective fashion.
"Wedlock suits you," he remarked. "I think, Watson, that
you have put on seven and a half pounds since I saw you."
"Seven!" I answered.
"Indeed, I should have thought a little more. Just a trifle
more, I fancy, Watson. And in practice again, I observe. You
did not tell me that you intended to go into harness."
"Then, how do you know?"
"I see it, I deduce it. How do I know that you have been
getting yourself very wet lately, and that you have a most clumsy
and careless servant girl?"
"My dear Holmes," said I, "this is too much. You would
certainly have been burned, had you lived a few centuries ago. It
is true that I had a country walk on Thursday and came home in a
dreadful mess, but as I have changed my clothes I can't imagine
how you deduce it. As to Mary Jane, she is incorrigible, and my
wife has given her notice, but there, again, I fail to see how you
work it out."
He chuckled to himself and rubbed his long, nervous hands
together.
"It is simplicity itself," said he; "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 to your practice, if a
gentleman walks into my rooms smelling of iodoform, with a
black mark of nitrate of silver upon his right forefinger, and a
bulge on the right side of his top-hat to show where he has
secreted his stethoscope, I must be dull, indeed, if I do not
pronounce him to be an active member of the medical profession."
I could not help laughing at the ease with which he explained
his process of deduction. "When I hear you give your reasons,"
I remarked, "the thing always appears to me to be so ridicu-
lously simple that I could easily do it myself, though at each
successive instance of your reasoning I am baffled until you
explain your process. And yet I believe that my eyes are as good
as yours."
"Quite so," he answered, lighting a cigarette, and throwing
himself down into an armchair. "You see, but you do not
observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have fre-
quently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room."
"Frequently."
"How often?"
"Well, some hundreds of times."
"Then how many are there?"
"How many? I don't know."
"Quite so! You have not observed. And yet you have seen.
That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen
steps, because I have both seen and observed. By the way,
since you are interested in these little problems, and since you
are good enough to chronicle one or two of my trifling experi-
ences, you may be interested in this." He threw over a sheet of
thick, pink-tinted note-paper which had been lying open upon
the table. "It came by the last post," said he. "Read it aloud."
The note was undated, and without either signature or address.

"There will call upon you to-night, at a quarter to eight
o'clock [it said], a gentleman who desires to consult you
upon a matter of the very deepest moment. Your recent
services to one of the royal houses of Europe have shown
that you are one who may safely be trusted with matters
which are of an importance which can hardly be exagger-
ated. This account of you we have from all quarters re-
ceived. Be in your chamber then at that hour, and do not
take it amiss if your visitor wear a mask.

"This is indeed a mystery," I remarked. "What do you
imagine that it means?"
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before

one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories,

instead of theories to suit facts. But the note itself. What do you
deduce from it?"
I carefully examined the writing, and the paper upon which it
was written.
"The man who wrote it was presumably well to do," I
remarked, endeavouring to imitate my companion's processes.
"Such paper could not be bought under half a crown a packet. It
is peculiarly strong and stiff."
"Peculiar -- that is the very word," said Holmes. "It is not an
English paper at all. Hold it up to the light."
I did so, and saw a large "E" with a small "g," a "P," and a
large "G" with a small "f" woven into the texture of the paper.
"What do you make of that?" asked Holmes.
"The name of the maker, no doubt; or his monogram, rather."
"Not at all. The 'G' with the small 't' stands for 'Gesell-
schaft,' which is the German for 'Company.' It is a customary
contraction like our 'Co.' 'P,' of course, stands for 'Papier.'
Now for the 'Eg.' Let us glance at our Continental Gazetteer."
He took down a heavy brown volume from his shelves. "Eglow,
Eglonitz -- here we are, Egria. It is in a German-speaking
country -- in Bohemia, not far from Carlsbad. 'Remarkable as
being the scene of the death of Wallenstein, and for its numerous
glass-factories and paper-mills.' Ha, ha, my boy, what do you
make of that?" His eyes sparkled, and he sent up a great blue
triumphant cloud from his cigarette.
"The paper was made in Bohemia," I said.
"Precisely. And the man who wrote the note is a German. Do
you note the peculiar construction of the sentence -- 'This ac-
count of you we have from all quarters received.' A Frenchman
or Russian could not have written that. It is the German who is
so uncourteous to his verbs. It only remains, therefore, to dis-
cover what is wanted by this German who writes upon Bohemian
paper and prefers wearing a mask to showing his face. And here
he comes, if I am not mistaken, to resolve all our doubts."
As he spoke there was the sharp sound of horses' hoofs and
grating wheels against the curb, followed by a sharp pull at the
bell. Holmes whistled.
"A pair, by the sound," said he. "Yes," he continued,
glancing out of the window. "A nice little brougham and a pair
of beauties. A hundred and fifty guineas apiece. There's money
in this case, Watson, if there is nothing else."
"I think that I had better go, Holmes."
"Not a bit, Doctor. Stay where you are. I am lost without my
Boswell. And this promises to be interesting. It would be a pity
to miss it."
"But your client --"
"Never mind him. I may want your help, and so may he.
Here he comes. Sit down in that armchair, Doctor, and give us
your best attention."
A slow and heavy step, which had been heard upon the stairs
and in the passage, paused immediately outside the door. Then
there was a loud and authoritative tap.
"Come in!" said Holmes.
A man entered who could hardly have been less than six feet
six inches in height, with the chest and limbs of a Hercules. His
dress was rich with a richness which would, in England, be
looked upon as akin to bad taste. Heavy bands of astrakhan were
slashed across the sleeves and fronts of his double-breasted coat,
while the deep blue cloak which was thrown over his shoulders
was lined with flame-coloured silk and secured at the neck with a
brooch which consisted of a single flaming beryl. Boots which
extended halfway up his calves, and which were trimmed at the
tops with rich brown fur, completed the impression of barbaric
opulence which was suggested by his whole appearance. He
carried a broad-brimmed hat in his hand, while he wore across
the upper part of his face, extending down past the cheekbones,
a black vizard mask, which he had apparently adjusted that very
moment, for his hand was still raised to it as he entered. From
the lower part of the face he appeared to be a man of strong
character, with a thick, hanging lip, and a long, straight chin
suggestive of resolution pushed to the length of obstinacy.
"You had my note?" he asked with a deep harsh voice and a
strongly marked German accent. "I told you that I would call."
He looked from one to the other of us, as if uncertain which to
address.
"Pray take a seat," said Holmes. "This is my friend and
colleague, Dr. Watson, who is occasionally good enough to help
me in my cases. Whom have I the honour to address?"
"You may address me as the Count Von Kramm, a Bohemian
nobleman. I understand that this gentleman, your friend, is a
man of honour and discretion, whom I may trust with a matter of
the most extreme importance. If not, I should much prefer to
communicate with you alone."
I rose to go, but Holmes caught me by the wrist and pushed
me back into my chair. "It is both, or none," said he. "You
may say before this gentleman anything which you may say to
me."
The Count shrugged his broad shoulders. "Then I must be-
gin," said he, "by binding you both to absolute secrecy for two
years; at the end of that time the matter will be of no importance.
At present it is not too much to say that it is of such weight it
may have an influence upon European history."
"I promise," said Holmes.
"And I."
"You will excuse this mask," continued our strange visitor.
"The august person who employs me wishes his agent to be
unknown to you, and I may confess at once that the title by
which I have just called myself is not exactly my own."
"I was aware of it," said Holmes drily.
"The circumstances are of great delicacy, and every precau-
tion has to be taken to quench what might grow to be an
immense scandal and seriously compromise one of the reigning
families of Europe. To speak plainly, the matter implicates the
great House of Ormstein, hereditary kings of Bohemia."
"I was also aware of that," murmured Holmes, settling him-
self down in his armchair and closing his eyes.
Our visitor glanced with some apparent surprise at the languid,
lounging figure of the man who had been no doubt depicted to
him as the most incisive reasoner and most energetic agent in
Europe. Holmes slowly reopened his eyes and looked impa-
tiently at his gigantic client.
"If your Majesty would condescend to state your case," he
remarked, "I should be better able to advise you."
The man sprang from his chair and paced up and down the
room in uncontrollable agitation. Then, with a gesture of desper-
ation, he tore the mask from his face and hurled it upon the
ground. "You are right," he cried; "I am the King. Why should
I attempt to conceal it?"
"Why, indeed?" murmured Holmes. "Your Majesty had not
spoken before I was aware that I was addressing Wilhelm
Gottsreich Sigismond von Ormstein, Grand Duke of Cassel-
Felstein, and hereditary King of Bohemia."
"But you can understand," said our strange visitor, sitting
down once more and passing his hand over his high white
forehead, "you can understand that I am not accustomed to
doing such business in my own person. Yet the matter was so
delicate that I could not confide it to an agent without putting
myself in his power. I have come incognito from Prague for the
purpose of consulting you."
"Then, pray consult," said Holmes, shutting his eyes once
more.
"The facts are briefly these: Some five years ago, during a
lengthy visit to Warsaw, I made the acquaintance of the well-
known adventuress, Irene Adler. The name is no doubt farmiliar
to you."
"Kindly look her up in my index, Doctor," murmured Holmes
without opening his eyes. For many years he had adopted a
system of docketing all paragraphs concerning men and things,
so that it was difficult to name a subject or a person on which he
could not at once furnish information. In this case I found her
biography sandwiched in between that of a Hebrew rabbi and
that of a staff-commander who had written a monograph upon
the deep-sea fishes.
"Let me see!" said Holmes. "Hum! Born in New Jersey in
the year 1858. Contralto -- hum! La Scala, hum! Prima donna
Imperial Opera of Warsaw -- yes! Retired from operatic stage -- ha!
Living in London -- quite so! Your Majesty, as I understand,
became entangled with this young person, wrote her some
compromising letters, and is now desirous of getting those letters
back."
"Precisely so. But how --"
"Was there a secret marriage?"
"None."
"No legal papers or certificates?"
"None."
"Then I fail to follow your Majesty. If this young person
should produce her letters for blackmailing or other purposes,
how is she to prove their authenticity?"
"There is the writing."
"Pooh, pooh! Forgery."
"My private note-paper."
"Stolen."
"My own seal."
"Imitated."
"My photograph."
"Bought."
"We were both in the photograph."
"Oh, dear! That is very bad! Your Majesty has indeed com-
mitted an indiscretion."
"I was mad -- insane."
"You have compromised yourself seriously."
"I was only Crown Prince then. I was young. I am but thirty
now."
"It must be recovered."
"We have tried and failed."
"Your Majesty must pay. It must be bought."
"She will not sell."
"Stolen, then."
"Five attempts have been made. Twice burglars in my pay
ransacked her house. Once we diverted her luggage when she
travelled. Twice she has been waylaid. There has been no result."
"No sign of it?"
"Absolutely none."
Holmes laughed. "It is quite a pretty little problem," said he.
"But a very serious one to me," returned the King reproachfully.
"Very, indeed. And what does she propose to do with the
photograph?"
"To ruin me."
"But how?"
"I am about to be married."
"So I have heard."
"To Clotilde Lothman von Saxe-Meningen, second daughter
of the King of Scandinavia. You may know the stnct principles
of her family. She is herself the very soul of delicacy. A shadow
of a doubt as to my conduct would bring the matter to an end."
"And Irene Adler?"
"Threatens to send them the photograph. And she will do it. I
know that she will do it. You do not know her, but she has a
soul of steel. She has the face of the most beautiful of women,
and the mind of the most resolute of men. Rather than I should
marry another woman, there are no lengths to which she would
not go -- none."
"You are sure that she has not sent it yet?"
"I am sure."
"And why?"
"Because she has said that she would send it on the day when
the betrothal was publicly proclaimed. That will be next Monday."
"Oh, then we have three days yet," said Holmes with a
yawn. "That is very fortunate, as I have one or two matters of
importance to look into just at present. Your Majesty will, of
course, stay in London for the present?"
"Certainly. You will find me at the Langham under the name
of the Count Von Kramm."
"Then I shall drop you a line to let you know how we
progress."
"Pray do so. I shall be all anxiety."
"Then, as to money?"
"You have carte blanche."
"Absolutely?"
"I tell you that I would give one of the provinces of my
kingdom to have that photograph."
"And for present expenses?"
The King took a heavy chamois leather bag from under his
cloak and laid it on the table.
"There are three hundred pounds in gold and seven hundred in
notes," he said.
Holmes scribbled a receipt upon a sheet of his note-book and
handed it to him.
"And Mademoiselle's address?" he asked.
"Is Briony Lodge, Serpentine Avenue, St. John's Wood."
Holmes took a note of it. "One other question," said he.
"Was the photograph a cabinet?"
"It was."
"Then, good-night, your Majesty, and I trust that we shall
soon have some good news for you. And good-night, Watson," he
added, as the wheels of the royal brougham rolled down the street.
"If you wlll be good enough to call to-morrow afternoon at three
o'clock I should like to chat this little matter over with you."

At three o'clock precisely I was at Baker Street, but Holmes
had not yet returned. The landlady informed me that he had left
the house shortly after eight o'clock in the morning. I sat down
beside the fire, however, with the intention of awaiting him,
however long he might be. I was already deeply interested in his
inquiry, for, though it was surrounded by none of the grim and
strange features which were associated with the two crimes
which I have already recorded, still, the nature of the case and
the exalted station of his client gave it a character of its own.
Indeed, apart from the nature of the investigation which my
friend had on hand, there was something in his masterly grasp of
a situation, and his keen, incisive reasoning, which made it a
pleasure to me to study his system of work, and to follow the
quick, subtle methods by which he disentangled the most inextri-
cable mysteries. So accustomed was I to his invariable success
that the very possibility of his failing had ceased to enter into my
head.
It was close upon four before the door opened, and a drunken-
looking groom, ill-kempt and side-whiskered, with an inflamed
face and disreputable clothes, walked into the room. Accustomed
as I was to my friend's amazing powers in the use of disguises, I
had to look three times before I was certain that it was indeed he.
With a nod he vanished into the bedroom, whence he emerged in
five minutes tweed-suited and respectable, as of old. Putting his
hands into his pockets, he stretched out his legs in front of the
fire and laughed heartily for some minutes.
"Well, really!" he cried, and then he choked and laughed
again until he was obliged to lie back, limp and helpless, in the
chair.
"What is it?"
"It's quite too funny. I am sure you could never guess how I
employed my morning, or what I ended by doing."
"I can't imagine. I suppose that you have been watching the
habits, and perhaps the house, of Miss Irene Adler."
"Quite so; but the sequel was rather unusual. I will tell you,
however. I left the house a little after eight o'clock this morning
in the character of a groom out of work. There is a wonderful
sympathy and freemasonry among horsy men. Be one of them,
and you will know all that there is to know. I soon found
Briony Lodge. It is a bijou villa, with a garden at the back.
but built out in front right up to the road, two stories. Chubb
lock to the door. Large sitting-room on the right side, well
furnished, with long windows almost to the floor, and those
preposterous English window fasteners which a child could open.
Behind there was nothing remarkable, save that the passage
window could be reached from the top of the coach-house. I
walked round it and examined it closely from every point of
view, but without noting anything else of interest.
"I then lounged down the street and found, as I expected, that
there was a mews in a lane which runs down by one wall of the
garden. I lent the ostlers a hand in rubbing down their horses,
and received in exchange twopence, a glass of half and half, two
fills of shag tobacco, and as much information as I could desire
about Miss Adler, to say nothing of half a dozen other people in
the neighbourhood in whom I was not in the least interested, but
whose biographies I was compelled to listen to."
"And what of Irene Adler?" I asked.
"Oh, she has turned all the men's heads down in that part.
She is the daintiest thing under a bonnet on this planet. So say
the Serpentine-mews, to a man. She lives quietly, sings at
concerts, drives out at five every day, and returns at seven sharp
for dinner. Seldom goes out at other times, except when she
sings. Has only one male visitor, but a good deal of him. He is
dark, handsome, and dashing, never calls less than once a day,
and often twice. He is a Mr. Godfrey Norton, of the Inner
Temple. See the advantages of a cabman as a confidant. They
had driven him home a dozen times from Serpentine-mews, and
knew all about him. When I had listened to all they had to tell, I
began to walk up and down near Briony Lodge once more, and
to think over my plan of campaign.
"This Godfrey Norton was evidently an important factor in
the matter. He was a lawyer. That sounded ominous. What was
the relation between them, and what the object of his repeated
visits? Was she his client, his friend, or his mistress? If the
former, she had probably transferred the photograph to his keep-
ing. If the latter, it was less likely. On the issue of this question
depended whether I should continue my work at Briony Lodge,
or turn my attention to the gentleman's chambers in the Temple.
It was a delicate point. and it widened the field of my inquiry.
I fear that I bore you with these details, but I have to let you
see my little difficulties. if you are to understand the situation."
"I am following you closely," I answered.
"I was still balancing the matter in my mind when a hansom
cab drove up to Briony Lodge, and a gentleman sprang out. He
was a remarkably handsome man, dark, aquiline, and moustached
-- evidently the man of whom I had heard. He appeared to be in
a great hurry, shouted to the cabman to wait, and brushed past
the maid who opened the door with the air of a man who was
thoroughly at home.
"He was in the house about half an hour, and I could catch
glimpses of him in the windows of the sitting-room, pacing up
and down, talking excitedly, and waving his arms. Of her I
could see nothing. Presently he emerged, looking even more
flurried than before. As he stepped up to the cab, he pulled a
gold watch from his pocket and looked at it earnestly, 'Drive like
the devil,' he shouted, 'first to Gross & Hankey's in Regent
Street, and then to the Church of St. Monica in the Edgeware
Road. Half a guinea if you do it in twenty minutes!'
"Away they went, and I was just wondering whether I should
not do well to follow them when up the lane came a neat little
landau, the coachman with his coat only half-buttoned, and his
tie under his ear, while all the tags of his harness were sticking
out of the buckles. It hadn't pulled up before she shot out of the
hall door and into it. I only caught a glimpse of her at the
moment, but she was a lovely woman, with a face that a man
might die for.
" 'The Church of St. Monica, John,' she cried, 'and half a
sovereign if you reach it in twenty minutes.'
"This was quite too good to lose, Watson. I was just balanc-
ing whether I should run for it, or whether I should perch behind
her landau when a cab came through the street. The driver
looked twice at such a shabby fare, but I jumped in before he
could object. 'The Church of St. Monica,' said I, 'and half a
sovereign if you reach it in twenty minutes.' It was twenty-five
minutes to twelve, and of course it was clear enough what was in
the wind.
"My cabby drove fast. I don't think I ever drove faster, but
the others were there before us. The cab and the landau with
their steaming horses were in front of the door when I arrived. I
paid the man and hurried into the church. There was not a soul
there save the two whom I had followed and a surpliced clergy-
man, who seemed to be expostulating with them. They were all
three standing in a knot in front of the altar. I lounged up the
side aisle like any other idler who has dropped into a church.
Suddenly, to my surprise, the three at the altar faced round to
me, and Godfrey Norton came running as hard as he could
towards me.
" 'Thank God,' he cried. 'You'll do. Come! Come!'
" 'What then?' I asked.
" 'Come, man, come, only three minutes, or it won't be
legal.'
"I was half-dragged up to the altar, and before I knew where I
was I found myself mumbling responses which were whispered
in my ear. and vouching for things of which I knew nothing, and
generally assisting in the secure tying up of Irene Adler, spinster,
to Godfrey Norton, bachelor. It was all done in an instant, and
there was the gentleman thanking me on the one side and the
lady on the other, while the clergyman beamed on me in front. It
was the most preposterous position in which I ever found myself
in my life, and it was the thought of it that started me laughing
just now. It seems that there had been some informality about
their license, that the clergyman absolutely refused to marry
them without a witness of some sort, and that my lucky appear-
ance saved the bridegroom from having to sally out into the
streets in search of a best man. The bride gave me a sovereign,
and I mean to wear it on my watch-chain in memory of the
occasion."
"This is a very unexpected turn of affairs," said l; "and what
then?"
"Well, I found my plans very seriously menaced. It looked as
if the pair might take an immediate departure, and so necessitate
very prompt and energetic measures on my part. At the church
door, however, they separated, he driving back to the Temple,
and she to her own house. 'I shall drive out in the park at five as
usual,' she said as she left him. I heard no more. They drove
away in different directions, and I went off to make my own
arrangements."
"Which are?"
"Some cold beef and a glass of beer," he answered, ringing
the bell. "I have been too busy to think of food, and I am likely
to be busier still this evening. By the way, Doctor, I shall want
your cooperation."
"I shall be delighted."
"You don't mind breaking the law?"
"Not in the least."
"Nor running a chance of arrest?"
"Not in a good cause."
"Oh, the cause is excellent!"
"Then I am your man."
"I was sure that I might rely on you."
"But what is it you wish?"
"When Mrs. Turner has brought in the tray I will make it
clear to you. Now," he said as he turned hungrily on the simple
fare that our landlady had provided, "I must discuss it while I
eat, for I have not much time. It is nearly five now. In two hours
we must be on the scene of action. Miss Irene, or Madame,
rather, returns from her drive at seven. We must be at Briony
Lodge to meet her."
"And what then?"
"You must leave that to me. I have already arranged what is
to occur. There is only one point on which I must insist. You
must not interfere, come what may. You understand?"
"I am to be neutral?"
"To do nothing whatever. There will probably be some small
unpleasantness. Do not join in it. It will end in my being
conveyed into the house. Four or five minutes afterwards the
sitting-room window will open. You are to station yourself close
to that open window."
"Yes."
"You are to watch me, for I will be visible to you."
"Yes."
"And when I raise my hand -- so -- you will throw into the
room what I give you to throw, and will, at the same time, raise
the cry of fire. You quite follow me?"
"Entirely."
"It is nothing very formidable," he said, taking a long cigar-
shaped roll from his pocket. "It is an ordinary plumber's smoke-
rocket, fitted with a cap at either end to make it self-lighting.
Your task is confined to that. When you raise your cry of fire,
it will be taken up by quite a number of people. You may then
walk to the end of the street, and I will rejoin you in ten minutes.
I hope that I have made myself clear?"
"I am to remain neutral, to get near the window, to watch
you, and at the signal to throw in this object, then to raise the cry
of fire, and to wait you at the comer of the street."
"Precisely."
"Then you may entirely rely on me."
"That is excellent. I think, perhaps, it is almost time that I
prepare for the new role I have to play."
He disappeared into his bedroom and returned in a few min-
utes in the character of an amiable and simple-minded Noncon-
formist clergyman. His broad black hat, his baggy trousers. his
white tie, his sympathetic smile, and general look of peering and
benevolent curiosity were such as Mr. John Hare alone could
have equalled. It was not merely that Holmes changed his cos-
tume. His expression, his manner, his very soul seemed to vary
with every fresh part that he assumed. The stage lost a fine actor,
even as science lost an acute reasoner, when he became a
specialist in crime.
It was a quarter past six when we left Baker Street, and it still
wanted ten minutes to the hour when we found ourselves in
Serpentine Avenue. It was already dusk, and the lamps were just
being lighted as we paced up and down in front of Briony
Lodge, waiting for the coming of its occupant. The house was
just such as I had pictured it from Sherlock Holmes's succinct
description, but the locality appeared to be less private than I
expected. On the contrary, for a small street in a quiet
neighbourhood, it was remarkably animated. There was a group
of shabbily dressed men smoking and laughing in a corner, a
scissors-grinder with his wheel, two guardsmen who were flirt-
ing with a nurse-girl, and several well-dressed young men who
were lounging up and down with cigars in their mouths.
"You see," remarked Holmes, as we paced to and fro in front
of the house, "this marriage rather simplifies matters. The pho-
tograph becomes a double-edged weapon now. The chances are
that she would be as averse to its being seen by Mr. Godfrey
Norton, as our client is to its coming to the eyes of his princess.
Now the question is, Where are we to find the photograph?"
"Where, indeed?"
"It is most unlikely that she carries it about with her. It is
cabinet size. Too large for easy concealment about a woman's
dress. She knows that the King is capable of having her waylaid
and searched. Two attempts of the sort have already been made.
We may take it, then, that she does not carry it about with her."
"Where, then?"
"Her banker or her lawyer. There is that double possibility.
But I am inclined to think neither. Women are naturally secre-
tive, and they like to do their own secreting. Why should she
hand it over to anyone else? She could trust her own guardian-
ship, but she could not tell what indirect or political influence
might be brought to bear upon a business man. Besides, remem-
ber that she had resolved to use it within a few days. It must be
where she can lay her hands upon it. It must be in her own
house."
"But it has twice been burgled."
"Pshaw! They did not know how to look."
"But how will you look?"
"I will not look."
"What then?"
"I will get her to show me."
"But she will refuse."
"She will not be able to. But I hear the rumble of wheels. It is
hcr carriage. Now carry out my orders to the letter."
As he spoke the gleam of the side-lights of a carriage came
round the curve of the avenue. It was a smart little landau which
rattled up to the door of Briony Lodge. As it pulled up, one of
the loafing men at the corner dashed forward to open the door in
the hope of earning a copper, but was elbowed away by another
loafer, who had rushed up with the same intention. A fierce
quarrel broke out, which was increased by the two guardsmen,
who took sides with one of the loungers, and by the scissors-
grinder, who was equally hot upon the other side. A blow was
struck, and in an instant the lady, who had stepped from her
carriage, was the centre of a little knot of flushed and struggling
men, who struck savagely at each other with their fists and
sticks. Holmes dashed into the crowd to protect the lady; but just
as he reached her he gave a cry and dropped to the ground, with
the blood running freely down his face. At his fall the guardsmen
took to their heels in one direction and the loungers in the other,
while a number of better-dressed people, who had watched the
scuffle without taking part in it, crowded in to help the lady and
to attend to the injured man. Irene Adler, as I will still call her,
had hurried up the steps; but she stood at the top with her superb
figure outlined against the lights of the hall, looking back into
the street.
"Is the poor gentleman much hurt?" she asked.
"He is dead," cried several voices.
"No, no, there's life in him!" shouted another. "But he'll be
gone before you can get him to hospital."
"He's a brave fellow," said a woman. "They would have had
the lady's purse and watch if it hadn't been for him. They were a
gang, and a rough one, too. Ah, he's breathing now."
"He can't lie in the street. May we bring him in, marm?"
"Surely. Bring him into the sitting room. There is a comfort-
able sofa. This way, please!"
Slowly and solemnly he was borne into Briony Lodge and laid
out in the principal room, while I still observed the proceedings
from my post by the window. The lamps had been lit, but the
blinds had not been drawn, so that I could see Holmes as he lay
upon the couch. I do not know whether he was seized with
compunction at that moment for the part he was playing, but I
know that I never felt more heartily ashamed of myself in my life
than when I saw the beautiful creature against whom I was
conspiring, or the grace and kindliness with which she waited
upon the injured man. And yet it would be the blackest treachery
to Holmes to draw back now from the part which he had
intrusted to me. I hardened my heart, and took the smoke-rocket
from under my ulster. After all, I thought, we are not injuring
her. We are but preventing her from injuring another.
Holmes had sat up upon the couch, and I saw him motion like
a man who is in need of air. A maid rushed across and threw
open the window. At the same instant I saw him raise his hand
and at the signal I tossed my rocket into the room with a cry of
"Fire!" The word was no sooner out of my mouth than the whole
crowd of spectators, well dressed and ill -- gentlemen, ostlers,
and servant-maids -- joined in a general shriek of "Fire!" Thick
clouds of smoke curled through the room and out at the open
window. I caught a glimpse of rushing figures, and a moment
later the voice of Holmes from within assuring them that it was a
false alarm. Slipping through the shouting crowd I made my way
to the corner of the street, and in ten minutes was rejoiced to find
my friend's arm in mine, and to get away from the scene of
uproar. He walked swiftly and in silence for some few minutes
until we had turned down one of the quiet streets which lead
towards the Edgeware Road.
"You did it very nicely, Doctor," he remarked. "Nothing
could have been better. It is all right."
"You have the photograph?"
"I know where it is."
"And how did you find out?"
"She showed me, as I told you she would."
"I am still in the dark."
"I do not wish to make a mystery," said he, laughing. "The
matter was perfectly simple. You, of course, saw that everyone
in the street was an accomplice. They were all engaged for the
evening."
"I guessed as much."
"Then, when the row broke out, I had a little moist red paint
in the palm of my hand. I rushed forward, fell down. clapped my
hand to my face, and became a piteous spectacle. It is an old
trick."
"That also I could fathom."
"Then they carried me in. She was bound to have me in.
What else could she do? And into her sitting-room. which was
the very room which I suspected. It lay between that and her
bedroom, and I was determined to see which. They laid me on a
couch, I motioned for air, they were compelled to open the
window. and you had your chance."
"How did that help you?"
"It was all-important. When a woman thinks that her house is
on fire, her instinct is at once to rush to the thing which she
values most. It is a perfectly overpowering impulse, and I have
more than once taken advantage of it. In the case of the Darling-
ton substitution scandal it was of use to me, and also in the
Arnsworth Castle business. A married woman grabs at her baby;
an unmarried one reaches for her jewel-box. Now it was clear to
me that our lady of to-day had nothing in the house more
precious to her than what we are in quest of. She would rush to
secure it. The alarm of fire was admirably done. The smoke and
shouting were enough to shake nerves of steel. She responded
beautifully. The photograph is in a recess behind a sliding panel
just above the right bell-pull. She was there in an instant, and I
caught a glimpse of it as she half-drew it out. When I cried out
that it was a false alarm, she replaced it, glanced at the rocket,
rushed from the room, and I have not seen her since. I rose, and,
making my excuses, escaped from the house. I hesitated whether
to attempt to secure the photograph at once; but the coachman
had come in, and as he was watching me narrowly it seemed
safer to wait. A little over-precipitance may ruin all."
"And now?" I asked.
"Our quest is practically finished. I shall call with the King
to-morrow, and with you, if you care to come with us. We will
be shown into the sitting-room to wait for the lady; but it is
probable that when she comes she may find neither us nor the
photograph. It might be a satisfaction to his Majesty to regain it
with his own hands."
"And when will you call?"
"At eight in the morning. She will not be up, so that we shall
have a clear field. Besides, we must be prompt, for this marriage
may mean a complete change in her life and habits. I must wire
to the King without delay."
We had reached Baker Street and had stopped at the door. He
was searching his pockets for the key when someone passing
said:
"Good-night, Mister Sherlock Holmes."
There were several people on the pavement at the time, but the
greeting appeared to come from a slim youth in an ulster who
had hurried by.
"I've heard that voice before," said Holmes, staring down the
dimly lit street. "Now, I wonder who the deuce that could have
been."

I slept at Baker Street that night, and we were engaged upon
our toast and coffee in the morning when the King of Bohemia
rushed into the room.
"You have really got it!" he cried, grasping Sherlock Holmes
by either shoulder and looking eagerly into his face.
"Not yet."
"But you have hopes?"
"I have hopes."
"Then, come. I am all impatience to be gone."
"We must have a cab."
"No, my brougham is waiting."
"Then that will simplify matters." We descended and started
off once more for Briony Lodge.
"Irene Adler is married," remarked Holmes.
"Married! When?"
"Yesterday."
"But to whom?"
"To an English lawyer named Norton."
"But she could not love him."
"I am in hopes that she does."
"And why in hopes?"
"Because it would spare your Majesty all fear of future an-
noyance. If the lady loves her husband, she does not love your
Majesty. If she does not love your Majesty, there is no reason
why she should interfere with your Majesty's plan."
"It is true. And yet Well! I wish she had been of my own
station! What a queen she would have made!" He relapsed into a
moody silence, which was not broken until we drew up in
Serpentine Avenue.
The door of Briony Lodge was open, and an elderly woman
stood upon the steps. She watched us with a sardonic eye as we
stepped from the brougham.
"Mr. Sherlock Holmes, I believe?" said she.
"I am Mr. Holmes," answered my companion, looking at her
with a questioning and rather startled gaze.
"Indeed! My mistress told me that you were likely to call. She
left this morning with her husband by the 5:15 train from Char-
ing Cross for the Continent."
"What!" Sherlock Holmes staggered back, white with chagrin
and surprise. "Do you mean that she has left England?"
"Never to return."
"And the papers?" asked the King hoarsely. "All is lost."
"We shall see." He pushed past the servant and rushed into
the drawing-room, followed by the King and myself. The furni-
ture was scattered about in every direction, with dismantled
shelves and open drawers, as if the lady had hurriedly ransacked
them before her flight. Holmes rushed at the bell-pull, tore back
a small sliding shutter, and, plunging in his hand, pulled out a
photograph and a letter. The photograph was of Irene Adler
herself in evening dress, the letter was superscribed to "Sherlock
Holmes, Esq. To be left till called for." My friend tore it open
and we all three read it together. It was dated at midnight of the
preceding night and ran in this way:

MY DEAR MR. SHERLOCK HOLMES:
You really did it very well. You took me in completely.
Until after the alarm of fire, I had not a suspicion. But then,
when I found how I had betrayed myself, I began to think. I
had been warned against you months ago. I had been told
that if the King employed an agent it would certainly be
you. And your address had been given me. Yet, with all
this, you made me reveal what you wanted to know. Even
after I became suspicious, I found it hard to think evil of
such a dear, kind old clergyman. But, you know, I have
been trained as an actress myself. Male costume is nothing
new to me. I often take advantage of the freedom which it
gives. I sent John, the coachman, to watch you, ran up-
stairs, got into my walking-clothes, as I call them, and
came down just as you departed.
Well, I followed you to your door, and so made sure that
I was really an object of interest to the celebrated Mr.
Sherlock Holmes. Then I, rather imprudently, wished you
good-night, and started for the Temple to see my husband.
We both thought the best resource was flight, when
pursued by so formidable an antagonist; so you will find the
nest empty when you call to-morrow. As to the photograph,
your client may rest in peace. I love and am loved by a
better man than he. The King may do what he will without
hindrance from one whom he has cruelly wronged. I keep it
only to safeguard myself, and to preserve a weapon which
will always secure me from any steps which he might take
in the future. I leave a photograph which he might care to
possess; and I remain, dear Mr. Sherlock Holmes,

Very truly yours,
Irene Norton, nee ADLER.

"What a woman -- oh, what a woman!" cried the King of
Bohemia, when we had all three read this epistle. "Did I not tell
you how quick and resolute she was? Would she not have made
an admirable queen? Is it not a pity that she was not on my
level?"
"From what I have seen of the lady she seems indeed to be on
a very different level to your Majesty," said Holmes coldly. "I
am sorry that I have not been able to bring your Majesty's
business to a more successful conclusion."
"On the contrary, my dear sir," cried the King; "nothing
could be more successful. I know that her word is inviolate. The
photograph is now as safe as if it were in the fire."
"I am glad to hear your Majesty say so."
"I am immensely indebted to you. Pray tell me in what way I
can reward you. This ring " He slipped an emerald snake ring
from his finger and held it out upon the palm of his hand.
"Your Majesty has something which I should value even more
highly,'' said Holmes.
''You have but to name it."
''This photograph!''
The King stared at him in amazement.
"Irene's photogMph!" he cried. "Certainly, if you wish it.''
"I thank your Majesty. Then there is no more to be done in
the matter. I have the honour to wish you a very good-morning."
He bowed, and, turning away without observing the hand which
the King had stretched out to him, he set off in my company for
his chambers.

And that was how a great scandal threatened to affect the
kingdom of Bohemia, and how the best plans of Mr. Sherlock
Holmes were beaten by a woman's wit. He used to make merry
over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of
late. And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to
her photograph, it is always under the honourable title of the
woman.

http://www.sherlockian.net/canon/stories/scan.html

[Don H]

"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1160497350.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

# Word, words, words - we humans are apes who like to monkey about with
words, which are artefacts used to describe empirical reality.
All of us go primarily by observed fact, and make deductions from it. In
the animal world, if you get it wrong you are soon dead.
Science uses this Trial-And-Error learning process, and calls it the
Scientific Method.
Sherlock Holmes uses a similar technique. He observes the crime scene;
gathers data, and makes hypotheses accordingly. He works "backwards" from
events to possible causes, and these can be one, few, or many. When people
are involved, then motive, means, and opportunity, must be taken into
account - to find the real criminal, as distinct from various suspects.
Forensic science is like a crossword puzzle; the clues provide possible
synonyms, but the spelling out of these must result in a match, both across
and down. If not, start again....
Induction is the gathering of data, to hopefully arrive at
generalisations.
Deduction, usually, is using generalisations to infer conclusions re
particular cases.
Detective deduction can be regarded as the reverse of the conventional
syllogism - you are given the conclusion, and maybe (part of) the minor
premise, and must get back to the major premise - in the form of "Only this
person could have committed the crime."
"Rationalisation" is similar, but based on desire. I desire to live
forever, hence I'll believe anything which contributes to this. Hence, God
exists, and is merciful; thus I shall go to Heaven when I die.
Of all forms of logic, this last is most common.

[Immortalist]

Don H wrote:
> "Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160497350.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Peter_Smith wrote:
> > > Holmes's reasonings are usually "inferences to the best explanation".
>

> > Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
> > by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
> >
>
> # Word, words, words - we humans are apes who like to monkey about with
> words, which are artefacts used to describe empirical reality.
> All of us go primarily by observed fact, and make deductions from it. In
> the animal world, if you get it wrong you are soon dead.

Am I to believe what you say simply because you have said it? Where is
your proof of this fact? I say it is an inductive theory and not a
deduction. If some individuals died if they behaived in particular
ways, why are those ways the truth? Hell there may be cases where the
fittest were the ones who had the mis-perception or dealt with
hallucinations in a false way and survived because of it.

> Science uses this Trial-And-Error learning process, and calls it the
> Scientific Method.

The process of elimination is just that and that is what trial and
error is. The scientific method is much more than just elimination.

> Sherlock Holmes uses a similar technique. He observes the crime scene;
> gathers data, and makes hypotheses accordingly. He works "backwards" from
> events to possible causes, and these can be one, few, or many. When people
> are involved, then motive, means, and opportunity, must be taken into
> account - to find the real criminal, as distinct from various suspects.
> Forensic science is like a crossword puzzle; the clues provide possible
> synonyms, but the spelling out of these must result in a match, both across
> and down. If not, start again....
> Induction is the gathering of data, to hopefully arrive at
> generalisations.
> Deduction, usually, is using generalisations to infer conclusions re
> particular cases.

> Detective deduction can be regarded as the reverse of the conventional
> syllogism - you are given the conclusion, and maybe (part of) the minor
> premise, and must get back to the major premise - in the form of "Only this
> person could have committed the crime."

Detective deduction is just induction. The history of the usage of the
term deduction might clear this up. I believe Holmes meant "inference"
when he used the term deduction, or he meant "the logic of it."

[VoidP]

extr...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Sherlock Holmes and Probabilistic Induction
>
> (Q0) "From a drop of water," said the writer, "a logician could infer
> the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or
> heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of
> which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it. Like all
> other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only
> be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow
> any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it. " [A Study
> in Scarlet, pt. 1, ch. 2] Sherlock Holmes.
>

Well, It was some time since I read Sherlock Holmes. but as kid, I
remember how his analytic logic stunned me. I couldn't understand how
he did dose things. Now, I think I can help the debaters, understand
what Holmes presumed to do, and what was his, as I find out, his
mistakes in logic. mistakes that in the book, could lead Holmes to the
solution, but in realty could not lead so safely to the solution.

I think that even professional philosophers avoid seeing the problems
that are present in Holmes logic. The problem, as I put it to your
judgment, as as follow.
Holmes uses Deduction to analyze relations between causes and effects.
He can go with deduction from a "From a drop of water," to the full
look or understanding of the "Atlantic or a Niagara without having
seen or heard of one or the other". But what Holmes forget (and a lot
of other good philosophers also forget) is that to properly do so, one
has to know all about water, or to know "the thing for itself".
But our only source of earthly knowledge about "the thing for
itself" is received from induction. In induction we means to find
connections between phenomenas. As Hume has shown, induction is not a
reliable source of information. Finding causes, which is part of the
process Holmes is dealing with, is even less reliable then induction,
because it is a mixture of process of induction-deduction, that is not
yet sufficiently understood.

Deductions are built on inductions, and because induction is not
reliable source of knowledge, the deductions are also not reliable.
For instance, when we find by induction that in a temperature of -
50C our hand can get a nasty frostbite, we deduce that in -180C, we
will get a very strong frostbite, and even loose our hand. But when by
experience, we pour on our hand liquid Nitrogen (in tempreture of
-180C), we see that nothing happens. In fact, scientist always try to
find inductions (lows, regularities, etc.), and to deduce from them new
behiviours of nature, and they are used to find that their deduction
were wrong.

The mistake of Holmes, come I think from geometry. When we deduce in
geometry, we know all about the properties of rectangles, strait lines
etc. (we defined them with all their properties, and so we know "the
thing in itself"), and so we can, if we are good geometrician, deduce
to infinity without a mistake. But in objects of realty we lack the
knowledge of "the thing in itself".
Geometry had inspired many philosophers to think that in realty we can
also deduce reliably. Hobbes had noted it in his papers. I think that
analytic philosophers also were inspired by mathematic.

So, to some it up. Deductions in realty are based on inductions, which
is a very problematic source of knowledge, on "the thing for
itself".

[Tron]

"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1160419739....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> [T]he "deductions" of Sherlock Holmes: I have ... been interested in
> the discrepancy between "deduction" in detective mysteries and
> "deduction" in the logic books. Doyle's use of the word "deduction"
> only reflects how the word has been commonly used--not only by ordinary
> people, but also by educated people. To most people, any kind of
> inference is a "deduction."
>

I think that says it all. To "deduce", and never mind if it is a de-, an ab-
or an induction - is used as a shorthand for the verbal phrase "arriving at
a conclusion by the use of logic"; or, IOW, as the verb to the noun "logic".
It is more of a metonymy - a pars pro toto - than an attempt to specify any
particular logical form. Tropical language - hard to avoid.

T

[Don H]

"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1160587502....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>
> Don H wrote:
> > "Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1160497350.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Peter_Smith wrote:
> > > > Holmes's reasonings are usually "inferences to the best
explanation".
> >
> > > Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
> > > by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
> > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
> > >
> >
> > # Word, words, words - we humans are apes who like to monkey about with
> > words, which are artefacts used to describe empirical reality.
> > All of us go primarily by observed fact, and make deductions from it.
In
> > the animal world, if you get it wrong you are soon dead.
>
> Am I to believe what you say simply because you have said it? Where is
> your proof of this fact? I say it is an inductive theory and not a
> deduction. If some individuals died if they behaived in particular
> ways, why are those ways the truth? Hell there may be cases where the
> fittest were the ones who had the mis-perception or dealt with
> hallucinations in a false way and survived because of it.

@ Yes, a fish in a coral reef might jump at shadows - but then it could jump
into the path of a fish it didn't see. A fish might be too busy feeding to
notice a predator; too late then. A South American animal which sees
another die from eating a colour frog, may avoid doing the same - based on
that one "generalisation"; if might also avoid eating any bright-coloured
frog.

>
> > Science uses this Trial-And-Error learning process, and calls it the
> > Scientific Method.
>
> The process of elimination is just that and that is what trial and
> error is. The scientific method is much more than just elimination.

@ I use trial-and-error in sense that some animals might find eating
poisonous plants is lethal, but others find eating a little at a time is
alright. How do they learn this, and not die - watching gluttons perish,
but others not?
The Scientific Method uses a process of - Aim, Data, Hypothesis, Method,
Conclusion, Verfication/Falsification - which is similar to what animals use
in trial-and-error. It is the Hypothesis part which is constantly revised,
and process repeated, until we get it right.

@ So, Holmes uses the Scientific Method, but in -
(1) a Time Frame of present-to-past. When we normally use it, it is in a
present-to-future situation, which is much easier.
(2) In both cases, (trial-and-error, and Sci-Meth) it might result in a
generalisation via Induction; certainly inference is involved.
(3) Syllogistically, we may claim that Induction is a reverse of the normal
syllogism - we have a Conclusion and go back to find a Major Premise.
(4) The Logic involved is based on the Scientific Method, rather than the
Logic of the Schoolmen.
(5) Internal validity is necessary in all cases, but also soundness
(reference to empirical fact). Of the two, fact is more important.

[Don H]

"VoidP" <tal....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160588299....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

# Holmes had a vast knowledge of things relevant to his field of operation,
and these are summed up by Dr.Watson in Chapter 2 of "A Study in Scarlet".
Holmes was an observer of minutiae, and of human thought processes. He
constantly astounded those present by coming out with a comment, the
conclusion of a chain of reasoning - whose "miraculous" nature disappeared
on explanation.
Of course, he could be wrong, but he berated Watson on occasion for
being - too timid in your inferences. True, to deduce the character of a
man from examination of his watch might lead to wrong assessment, because an
effect may have one or more causes. When there is only one possible cause,
then Holmes was on safer ground - a red clay which only existed in a
locally-excavated site.
Any generalisation is only as valid as the range of data it covers; "all
swans are white" needs modification when black swans are discovered.
The curious incident of the dog in the night-time. "But the dog did
nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident" - because the
dog didn't bark, thus must have know the person present.
While it may not be possible to infer the complete skeleton of a dinosaur
from a single tooth, it is remarkable what can be inferred, and this
increases as more bones are unearthed. Same with Holmes; the more clues the
better - until they all come together and point to one inevitable
conclusion, as in the Six Napoleons.

[Immortalist]

Then you add "memory" to "trial and error?"

> >
> > > Science uses this Trial-And-Error learning process, and calls it the
> > > Scientific Method.
> >
> > The process of elimination is just that and that is what trial and
> > error is. The scientific method is much more than just elimination.
>
> @ I use trial-and-error in sense that some animals might find eating
> poisonous plants is lethal, but others find eating a little at a time is
> alright. How do they learn this, and not die - watching gluttons perish,
> but others not?
> The Scientific Method uses a process of - Aim, Data, Hypothesis, Method,
> Conclusion, Verfication/Falsification - which is similar to what animals use
> in trial-and-error. It is the Hypothesis part which is constantly revised,
> and process repeated, until we get it right.
>

Trial and error doesn't include resulting hypothesis, that would be
trial-error-hypothesistrial-error-modifiedhypothesis.

Even those animals that survive would survive because of some neural
structure or events proceeding regularly resulting in selection.

Present to past or past to future, whats the difference, they can both
be inductive. A scientist doing geological work is more like your
present to past idea. It seems your describing varioous ways to be
inductive.

> (2) In both cases, (trial-and-error, and Sci-Meth) it might result in a
> generalisation via Induction; certainly inference is involved.

But inductivity can be also interpreted as (contingency) that is the
outcome depends on further events taking place. This as opposed to what
is necessarily the case or what happens of necessity.

We are confusing these Two views of Deduction & Induction:

View 1: conclusion;
Deduction = infers particular from general truths
Induction = infers general from particular truths

View 2: conclusion;
Deduction = follows with absolute necessity
Induction = follows with some degree of probability

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy.debate/msg/d55108c0ba7d042e

> (3) Syllogistically, we may claim that Induction is a reverse of the normal
> syllogism - we have a Conclusion and go back to find a Major Premise.

refer to answeer to (2)

> (4) The Logic involved is based on the Scientific Method, rather than the
> Logic of the Schoolmen.

Actually the logic involved is the propositional "knowing that" as
opposed to the non-linguistic "knowing-how" and hence we are in the
realm of the grammarian and his syntax.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=predicate+logic+first+order

> (5) Internal validity is necessary in all cases, but also soundness
> (reference to empirical fact). Of the two, fact is more important.

The strength of coherence and correspondance are the main essential in
my opinion;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=q=coherence+theory
http://www.google.com/search?hl=q=correspondence+theory

[chazwin]

Deduction = system of logic, inference and conclusion drawn from
examination of facts. Conclusions drawn from the general down to the
specific.
Induction = of reasoning; proceeding from particular facts to a general
conclusion

What Sherlock Holmes did was to look at particular facts such as mud
stains and train tickets and induct or induce general conclusions about
the state of affairs. Sometimes his inferences were both inductive and
deductive.

It was Conan-Doyle that made the mistake of calling such behaviour
deduction, and is not generally accepted or understood.
"Common usage" is not wrong just the way way it appears in Sherlock H.
stories.

[Immortalist]

chazwin wrote:
> Deduction = system of logic, inference and conclusion drawn from
> examination of facts. Conclusions drawn from the general down to the
> specific.
> Induction = of reasoning; proceeding from particular facts to a general
> conclusion
>
> What Sherlock Holmes did was to look at particular facts such as mud
> stains and train tickets and induct or induce general conclusions about
> the state of affairs. Sometimes his inferences were both inductive and
> deductive.
>
> It was Conan-Doyle that made the mistake of calling such behaviour
> deduction, and is not generally accepted or understood.
> "Common usage" is not wrong just the way way it appears in Sherlock H.
> stories.
>

I can accept that upon first blush but are you not sure that he meant
"to deduce" (4 below) as opposed to "deduction" (5 below)? This is
interesting, trying to untangle different uses in different times with
a subject dating thousands of years in name.

de·duc·tion / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[di-duhk-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

-noun 1. the act or process of deducting; subtraction.

2. something that is or may be deducted: She took deductions for a home
office and other business expenses from her taxes.

3. the act or process of deducing.

4. something that is deduced: His astute deduction was worthy of
Sherlock Holmes.

5. Logic. a. a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows
necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot
be false if the premises are true. b. a conclusion reached by this
process. Compare induction (def. 4).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deduction

##################################

deduce:

-verb (used with object), -duced, -duc·ing. 1. to derive as a
conclusion from something known or assumed; infer: From the evidence
the detective deduced that the gardener had done it.
2. to trace the derivation of; trace the course of: to deduce one's
lineage.

------------------------------------

[Origin: 1520-30; < L deducere to lead down, derive, equiv. to de-
de- + ducere to lead, bring]

-Related forms
de·duc·i·ble, adjective
de·duc·i·bil·i·ty, de·duc·i·ble·ness, noun
de·duc·i·bly, adverb

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deduce

[Don H]

"chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160676180....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

# Yes, it's useful to study etymology of these terms.
"De-duce" means to SUBTRACT; to lead from. We start out with a
generalisation and, from that, infer a particular conclusion - the latter
being smaller in scope than the former
"In-duce" is the opposite; to ADD to; to lead into some general
proposition from an aggregation of particular instances. Small items give
one Large result.
What then does Sherlock Holmes do?
He uses the Scientific Method, in forensic mode:
(1) Data Collection.
He is a "detect-ive", so primarily he detects clues re a crime; and from
these particulars,
(2) he forms an Hypothesis (or several); which must then be -
(3) Tested, with hypotheses modified or eliminated, as further facts come
to light.
(4) He come to a final Conclusion - a general statement of the kind:
"Only this person could have committed the crime." ("All other persons are
innocent.")
(5) This must be Verified or Falsified.
All of which is essentially Induction.
But he also uses Deduction.
Knowing, for example, that "A person cannot be in two places at the same
time", this generalisation can establish alibis, thus ruling out various
persons who may be suspect.
The Detective is essentially an "Inductionist" (in my opinion) - as he
goes from particulars; gathering and relating them, so a single conclusion
eventuates.
Furthermore, this process is inevitably retrospective, ie. goes back in
time, from effects - to possible, or probable, or certain, cause(s).
"If you eliminate the impossible, then what remains, however improbable,
is the truth."
Some parts (clues) of a crime scene "jigsaw" might be obscure or
missing - but if you get enough of the pieces, and put them in correct
place, then the whole picture can be visualised.

[chazwin]

Immortalist wrote:
> chazwin wrote:
> > Deduction = system of logic, inference and conclusion drawn from
> > examination of facts. Conclusions drawn from the general down to the
> > specific.
> > Induction = of reasoning; proceeding from particular facts to a general
> > conclusion
> >
> > What Sherlock Holmes did was to look at particular facts such as mud
> > stains and train tickets and induct or induce general conclusions about
> > the state of affairs. Sometimes his inferences were both inductive and
> > deductive.
> >
> > It was Conan-Doyle that made the mistake of calling such behaviour
> > deduction, and is not generally accepted or understood.
> > "Common usage" is not wrong just the way way it appears in Sherlock H.
> > stories.
> >
>
> I can accept that upon first blush but are you not sure that he meant
> "to deduce" (4 below) as opposed to "deduction" (5 below)?

There is nothing to it at all. "to deduce" is merely the infinitive
verb, whilst Deduction is the noun. There is nothing more to untangle.

[mikeg...@xtra.co.nz]

chazwin wrote:

Nothing about the subject that he keep running away from.

Hey dopey, I mean hey Brains, YOU claimed that intelligent human beings
can never claim anything as absolute certain knowledge, so your
challenge is, to name the *intelligent human being* who claims that it
is not an absolute 100% scientific fact of absolute reality that *a
human being can not survive in the so called vacuum of space, out-side
of his space craft, unless he is wearing a specially designed space
suit.*

And then name the *intelligent human being* who can not claim with 100%
absolute certain knowledge that Maggie Thatcher was at some time in
history Prime Minister of GB.

Michael Gordge

[chazwin]

mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> chazwin wrote:
>
> Nothing about the subject that he keep running away from.
>
>
> Hey dopey, I mean hey Brains, YOU claimed that intelligent human beings
> can never claim anything as absolute certain knowledge, so your
> challenge is, to name the *intelligent human being* who claims that it
> is not an absolute 100% scientific fact of absolute reality that *a
> human being can not survive in the so called vacuum of space, out-side
> of his space craft, unless he is wearing a specially designed space
> suit.*

Prove it!

>
> And then name the *intelligent human being* who can not claim with 100%
> absolute certain knowledge that Maggie Thatcher was at some time in
> history Prime Minister of GB.

Prove it!

>
>
> Michael Gordge

[suz...@hwcn.org]

Immortalist wrote:
> [T]he "deductions" of Sherlock Holmes: I have ... been interested in
> the discrepancy between "deduction" in detective mysteries and
> "deduction" in the logic books. Doyle's use of the word "deduction"
> only reflects how the word has been commonly used--not only by ordinary
> people, but also by educated people. To most people, any kind of
> inference is a "deduction."
>
> I don't see that it helps to say that the common usage is "wrong" and
> that the technical usage is "right." I would think that if one is
> knowledgeable on a certain subject and wants to convey that information
> to others, it would be best to point out that within that subject
> matter the use of a word differs from common usage.

And they do.

>
> If I tell someone that I have "deduced" something, they think they know
> what I mean. If I talk to someone about "induction," I have lost them.
> They think they know what I mean if I talk about "learning from
> experience." As with so many difficult words, one problem with
> "induction" is that the word has been used in so many different ways.
> "Induction" might mean:
>
> * To elicit a theory.
>
> * To verify a theory.
>
> * To elicit a higher principle.
>
> * To elicit an ordinary fact.
>
> Supposedly the purpose of induction is to establish "first principles."

We could assume that, but it would be incorrect.

> Yet the process by which an ordinary person establishes everyday
> "facts" (e.g., the attributes of objects) falls right in line with
> descriptions of "induction." It appears to me that induction in this
> common form (or "epagoge," or whatever it ought to be called) does not
> have to be an "act of reasoning"; at times it can be an automatic
> process--a brain process that during the course of observation produces
> "intuitions" for me without any effort on my part.

Yes.

> I think induction can be confusing because a conclusion can be strong deduction as well as correct induction. Here is an argument that is both deductivly and inductively adequate:

All man are mortal.
Aristotel is a man.
* Aristotel is mortal.

Note that I use * to mark "therefore" or indicate conclusion.

Argument above is both, deductively strong and inductively strong. It's
premises entail it's conclusion.

Here is another argument.

Most gorillas are vegetarian.
Marvin is gorilla.
* Marvin is vegetarian.

Not clearly deductively correct. (Marvin may be carnivore though very
unlikely). But still, argument is just as clearly a very strong
inductive argument.

So how do we distinguesh ?

Both deductive and inductive methods rely on argument. Both are
arguments in which premisses do cetrain thing to a conclusion. In
deductive method premiss _verifies_ conclusion and in inductive method
premiss _increases the likelihood_ of conclusion.

Regards
Suzana

[Don H]

<suz...@hwcn.org> wrote in message
news:1160860514....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

# "All men are mortal" (where men includes women)
This is based on the observation that humans tend to die, sooner or
later, with no exceptions - as yet.
[ Though the prophet Elijah (?) rode up to heaven on a fiery chariot,
according to the Bible. ]
The Categorical Syllogism deals with such cases (as distinct from the
Hypothetical, Alternative, and Disjunctive). We take one case of "men", and
inevitably the attribute "mortal" is attached.
But Induction precedes Deduction, and Observation of our Natural World
precedes Induction. It is only when observations of like cases show
sufficient consistency that inductive generalisation is possible.
(Though if you touch a hot stove, one case might be sufficient to cancel
further experimentation.)
We can have "all", or "most" or "some" or "a few" - even "none". But
nothing is certain, which is where science has the advantage over religion,
where absolutes prevail - until a total upheaval occurs, with a schism, or
heresy, and a new orthodoxy is born.

[Peter_Smith]

The following might help to unravel some of the misunderstandings
evidenced in this thread.

Go to: http://www.logicbook.net

Click on the picture of the book's cover.

You get to the publisher's page where you can Google search "An
Introduction to Formal Logic"

Search for e.g. "evaluation" and you will be taken to page 1 of the
book, and you can read through the first 11 pages. Search next for
"scientific" and you can go on a page -- which should be enough to help
explain the ideas of deduction and induction.

[suz...@hwcn.org]

> deductively and inductively adequate:

> >
> > All man are mortal.
> > Aristotel is a man.
> > * Aristotel is mortal.
> >
> > Note that I use * to mark "therefore" or indicate conclusion.
> >
> > Argument above is both, deductively strong and inductively strong. It's
> > premises entail it's conclusion.
> >
> > Here is another argument.
> >
> > Most gorillas are vegetarian.
> > Marvin is gorilla.
> > * Marvin is vegetarian.
> >
> > Not clearly deductively correct. (Marvin may be carnivore though very
> > unlikely). But still, argument is just as clearly a very strong
> > inductive argument.
> >

> > So how do we distinguish ?

> >
> > Both deductive and inductive methods rely on argument. Both are

> > arguments in which premises do certain thing to a conclusion. In
> > deductive method premise _verifies_ conclusion and in inductive method
> > premise _increases the likelihood_ of conclusion.

> >
> > Regards
> > Suzana
> >
> # "All men are mortal" (where men includes women)
> This is based on the observation that humans tend to die, sooner or
> later, with no exceptions - as yet.
> [ Though the prophet Elijah (?) rode up to heaven on a fiery chariot,
> according to the Bible. ]
> The Categorical Syllogism deals with such cases (as distinct from the
> Hypothetical, Alternative, and Disjunctive). We take one case of "men", and
> inevitably the attribute "mortal" is attached.
> But Induction precedes Deduction, and Observation of our Natural World
> precedes Induction. It is only when observations of like cases show
> sufficient consistency that inductive generalisation is possible.

That's right. Observations have to be consistent and when they are they
verify that proposition is true as opposed to being false).

Another way in looking at inductive and deductive argument is to
recognise that induction goes from general to specific while deduction
goes from specific to general. Af course, I would take this to be
indicative not a rule. There are instances when rule is broken.

> (Though if you touch a hot stove, one case might be sufficient to cancel
> further experimentation.)

:-) Yes.

> We can have "all", or "most" or "some" or "a few" - even "none". But
> nothing is certain, which is where science has the advantage over religion,

Yes. Theology unfortunately doesn't always have referent they can test.
This af course presents problem in being certain. This is why religion
has tendency to coherent ism and science to correspondence methodology.

> where absolutes prevail - until a total upheaval occurs, with a schism, or
> heresy, and a new orthodoxy is born.

:-)

Aristotle was first philosopher that discovered pretty much everything
there is about logic. He is what we call father of logic in same sense
Freud was father of analysis. But since science of Logic grew and
refined it self so both fathers tend to be more of history...
Categorical syllogism is term he used to explain the process. Argument
in his case (and no so far of of current classical logic) consist from
premises and inferred conclusion.

[Peter_Smith]

suz...@hwcn.org wrote:

> Another way in looking at inductive and deductive argument is to
> recognise that induction goes from general to specific while deduction
> goes from specific to general. Af course, I would take this to be
> indicative not a rule. There are instances when rule is broken.

I take it that's a typo. It would be more accurate to say that a
deductively valid argument can never deduce general conclusions from
more specific premisses, while inductive inferences leap from a bunch
of specific premisses to a wider, more general, conclusion.

> Aristotle was first philosopher that discovered pretty much everything
> there is about logic.

In the same way he discovered pretty much everything there is about
biology? It's about as true in either case -- i.e. not true at all.

[Suzana]

Peter_Smith wrote:
> suz...@hwcn.org wrote:
>
> > Another way in looking at inductive and deductive argument is to
> > recognise that induction goes from general to specific while deduction
> > goes from specific to general. Af course, I would take this to be
> > indicative not a rule. There are instances when rule is broken.
>
> I take it that's a typo. It would be more accurate to say that a
> deductively valid argument can never deduce general conclusions from

> more specific premises, while inductive inferences leap from a bunch
> of specific premises to a wider, more general, conclusion.

:-) It has been said that but it's misleading. Some inductively strong
arguments have general premiss and particular conclusion. For example:
'All emeralds previously found have been green, therefore the next
emerald found will be green' And some deductively correct arguments
proceed from particular premiss to general conclusion. For example: The
emerald number one is green, the emerald number two is green, the
emerald number three is green; therefore, all emeralds numbered from
one to three are green' There is no correlation between the nature of
the argument (deductive or inductive) and the nature of statements that
comprise argument (general or specific)

>
> > Aristotle was first philosopher that discovered pretty much everything
> > there is about logic.
>
> In the same way he discovered pretty much everything there is about
> biology? It's about as true in either case -- i.e. not true at all.

I was referring to method and basic principles behind it.

[Peter_Smith]

> :-) It has been said that but it's misleading. Some inductively strong
> arguments have general premiss and particular conclusion. For example:
> 'All emeralds previously found have been green, therefore the next
> emerald found will be green' And some deductively correct arguments
> proceed from particular premiss to general conclusion. For example: The
> emerald number one is green, the emerald number two is green, the
> emerald number three is green; therefore, all emeralds numbered from
> one to three are green'

Sure :-) I was, rather unwarrantedly, reading perhaps too much into
"general" (i.e. as involving more than bounded quantifiers).

[Immortalist]

chazwin wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > chazwin wrote:
> > > Deduction = system of logic, inference and conclusion drawn from
> > > examination of facts. Conclusions drawn from the general down to the
> > > specific.
> > > Induction = of reasoning; proceeding from particular facts to a general
> > > conclusion
> > >
> > > What Sherlock Holmes did was to look at particular facts such as mud
> > > stains and train tickets and induct or induce general conclusions about
> > > the state of affairs. Sometimes his inferences were both inductive and
> > > deductive.
> > >
> > > It was Conan-Doyle that made the mistake of calling such behaviour
> > > deduction, and is not generally accepted or understood.
> > > "Common usage" is not wrong just the way way it appears in Sherlock H.
> > > stories.
> > >
> >
> > I can accept that upon first blush but are you not sure that he meant
> > "to deduce" (4 below) as opposed to "deduction" (5 below)?
>
> There is nothing to it at all. "to deduce" is merely the infinitive
> verb, whilst Deduction is the noun. There is nothing more to untangle.
>

Etymology is the study of the origins of words. Through old texts and
comparison with other languages, etymologists reconstruct the history
of words - when they entered a language, from what source, and how
their form and meaning have changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology

Can you produce one for deduction and induction? Or is that what we are
doing now?