Learning from Sherlock Holmes: An Analytical, Argumentative, and Process Analysis Essay, All Rolled into One

This image is in the public domain.

 

In detective stories, red herrings (false leads or false clues) often take the form of mistaken or false identities or mistakes concerning the manner, time, or place of death; the motive for the murder; or several of these errors. Sometimes, however, red herrings result from errors in reasoning itself, that is, because of fallacies or due to misapplications of logical procedures.

A good number of errors in reasoning result from fallacies, especially those characterized by confirmation bias, hasty generalization, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and circular reasoning. These particular types of fallacies might be called errors in thinking that result from the manner in which reasoning is applied; others types of faulty thinking––those that are the subject of this study––result from errors in the misapplication of the processes of thinking.

Basically, there are two processes of thinking: deduction and induction. Abduction is a special, refined form of the latter. As David Baggett points out, in “Sherlock Holmes as Epistemologist,” “abduction . . . is an inference to the best explanation.” This form of reasoning is accomplished by “identifying a pool of candidates to account for some state of affairs [such as a murder], then narrowing down the list by a principled set of criteria, [and] then inferring to it as the likely true explanation.”

In a murder mystery, three questions can guide the application of the process:

 

1. What are the possible causes of the murder?

2. Which of these possible causes of the murder fit the entire set of criteria?

3. Which of these resulting possible causes [those that fit all the criteria] is likely the best likely explanation of the murder?

 

Both Holmes and Baggett remind readers that the best possible cause of the “particular state of affairs,” in Baggett’s words, or the means of the murder, for Holmes’s purposes, must fit as many as possible, if not, indeed, all the criteria that have been determined by the logician (detective). Only the one that does so or comes closest to doing so should be considered as probably conclusive.

But what are the criteria? How are they determined? From whence do they come?

In detective fiction, the criteria come from the evidence collected at the crime scene, from interrogations of witnesses, from the facts of the case, and any other relevant sources of information at the detective’s disposal that may be helpful in the solving of the murder (or, in some cases, another crime).

This image is in the public domain.

For example, to solve the mystery of “The Adventure of the Speckled Band,” Holmes must first determine the possible causes of the murder of Helen Stoner’s sister twin Julia. His interview with Helen provides an account of Julia’s demise and a list of possible suspects:

 

· Julia dies shortly before her pending marriage;

· Julia had heard an odd metallic sound and a shrill whistle before dying;

· Julia had seemed terrified;

· Julia had warned Julia not to sleep in her own bedroom because of the strange noises;

· Julia appeared to have died of fright or due to an attack of an unseen assailant.

· Possible suspects are Dr. Roylott, a band of Gypsies, and the wild cheetah and baboon that have the run of the estate. It seems unlikely that Helen is a suspect because it is she who consults Holmes about her sister’s death.

This image is in the public domain.

 

During his investigation of the crime scene, which occurs during several visits, Holmes discovers (on his first visit):

 

· a ventilator in the ceiling of the room;

· the location of Julia’s bed, which is bolted to the floor, directly below the ventilator grille;

· a bell chord that is not connected to a bell;

 

On his second visit, Holmes discovers a safe and a bowl of milk in Dr. Roylott’s bedroom and surmises that the safe contains a snake.

On his third visit, Holmes sees the snake exit the ventilator and attack him.

He suspects that the snake was the murder weapon used by Dr. Roylott, who’d inserted the snake into the ventilator duct and trained it to crawl down the bell rope and attack its victim and then to return to Roylott’s room for its reward, a bowl of milk, before it was again locked inside Roylott’s safe.

Therefore, probable criteria, in the form of questions, would consist of:

 

1. Was the date of Julia’s death significant? If so, why?

2. What caused the whistling that Julia heard shortly before her death? Was this sound significant? If so, how and why?

3. What caused the odd metallic sound that Julia heard shortly before her death? Was this sound significant? If so, how and why?

4. Why did Julia seem terrified?

5. Why did the strange sounds that Julia had heard prompt her to warn Helen not to sleep in her (Helen’s) own bedroom?

6. What makes Julia believe that Helen appeared to have died of fright or due to an attack by an unseen assailant?

7. Why are Dr. Roylott, a band of Gypsies, and the wild cheetah and baboon that have the run of the estate suspects in Helen’s death?

8. Why is there a ventilator in the ceiling of Julia’s room ?

9. Why is Julia’s bed location where it is, and why is her bed bolted to the floor, directly below the ventilator grille”

10. Why is the bell chord near Julian’s bed not connected to a bell?

11. Why is there a safe and a bowl of milk in Dr. Roylott’s room?

12. Why might the safe contain a snake?

13. Why does Holmes see a snake exit the ventilator in Julia’s room and attack him?

 

The best possible solution to the mystery of Helen’s death is one that best answers as many as possible, if not all, of these questions, i. e., fits the criteria upon which these questions are based.

Despite Holmes’s knowing this, he does not initially select the correct potential explanation as to how the crime was committed, as he himself admits to Watson: “I had . . . come to an entirely erroneous conclusion, which shows . . . how dangerous it always is to reason from insufficient data.” What threw him off, or misdirected him, from the correct solution to the mystery, he says, was his confusion, caused by Julia’s description to Helen, of a band of “gipsies” known for their wearing of “spotted handkerchiefs. . . over their heads,” as the “speckled band.”

Holmes realized that his initial solution to the mystery was wrong, he explains, because it did not accord with all the facts about the crime, two facts pertaining to which, “the ventilator . . . and the bell rope [hanging] down to the bed,” he later inferred, indicated that the rope might be intended “as a bridge, for something passing through the hole, and coming to the bed,” namely a venomous snake. This realization led him to connect the snake to the whistle, which might have been used to train the snake. His third visit to Dr. Roylott’s room had confirmed his new suspicions: a chair showing signs of having been stood upon, which provided Dr. Roylott with the means of reaching the ventilator; the saucer of milk; and the looped whipcord.

Although Holmes attributes his initial failure to solve the mystery of Helen’s murder to a lack of sufficient data, several other possible reasons for his original lack of success include:

 

· Incomplete or Ambiguous Evidence: When the evidence is limited or open to multiple interpretations, Holmes might select an explanation that, while plausible, isn't the actual cause—leading to a reasoning error.

· Bias in Candidate Selection: Holmes may focus on certain candidates over others based on prior assumptions or biases, potentially overlooking a better explanation.

· Criteria for Narrowing Down Candidates: Holmes applies certain principles or criteria to eliminate explanations. If these criteria are misapplied or based on incorrect premises, he might dismiss the true explanation prematurely.

· Complexity and Deception in the Case: The case’s intricate setup, with deliberate misdirection by Roylott, can cause Holmes to favor explanations that fit the misleading clues rather than the actual facts.

· Heuristics and Cognitive Limitations: Even with logical reasoning, human cognition (including Holmes's) relies on heuristics—rules of thumb that simplify complex reasoning but can sometimes lead to errors. Holmes could use inappropriate heuristics.

 

Ultimately, Holmes does succeed in properly applying the abductive method and selecting the most likely explanation for the criteria pertaining to the case that he is investigating, although he may attribute the cause of his initial failure to only one possible cause when, in fact, there seem to be multiple causes. In doing so, he commits yet another misapplication of the abductive reasoning process.

“The Adventure of the Speckled Band” is a model of how other writers of detective fiction can use not only red herrings (false leads or false clues), but also results from errors in the very application of abductive reasoning itself, that is, fallacies due to misapplications of the logical procedures themselves (deduction and induction) associated with the special form of induction known as abduction.

Writing Effective Sentences

Copyright 2019 by Gary L. Pullman

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

To write an effective sentence—a sentence that communicates exactly what you mean—you should practice the follow these principles:

• Use active voice. (Active voice results from using an active subject and an action verb. Often, the verb is transitive: in other words, it has a direct object.)
• Use the third person. (All nouns, all indefinite pronouns, and all third-person personal pronouns are in the third person.)
• Be concise. (Use only the words that are necessary to communicate your precise meaning.)
• Write with purpose and deliberation, with a specific intention, or aim.
• Start with a kernel sentence. (A kernel sentence is the shortest possible sentence that you can construct about a topic. Often, a kernel sentence consists of only an active subject and an action verb.)
• After writing a kernel sentence about your topic, consider what information you need to add to communicate the exact meaning you have in mind. Also consider what additional information, if any, your reader is likely to need to know about the topic as you are writing about it in this particular sentence.) According to philosopher and rhetorician Kenneth Burke, all communication addresses only one or more of these questions: Who? What? When? Where? How? Why? How many or how much? Knowing this about communication can help you to decide what information is necessary to include in any sentence concerning any topic.

Let's practice this approach.

Suppose you are writing about the topic of sharks' attacks.

Start your sentence with these words. “Sharks” is your subject; “attack” is your action verb:

Sharks attack.

Ask yourself, WHAT about shark attacks? (What point do you intend to communicate about a shark attack?)

Sharks attack rarely.

What else do you intend to say about shark attacks?

Sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.

What is your purpose in communicating these facts? What do you intend to communicate? Perhaps you intend to correct a misconception, such as:

Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently.

If this is the case, relate your goal (correcting a misconception about shark attacks) to the sentence you have already written (about the rarity and relative non-lethal number of shark attacks):

Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently, but sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.

To emphasize your point, you can add a phrase such as “in reality”:

Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently, but, in reality, sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.

Let's review what intentions motivated you to construct each new, expanded version of this kernel sentence.

You started with a kernel sentence about a specific topic: “Sharks attack.”

You identified the first point you wanted to communicate about the topic of your sentence: “rarely.”

You decided to add a pertinent fact to the sentence: “and these attacks are seldom fatal.”

You identified your purpose in writing these facts, which was to correct a misconception: “Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently.”

You related your purpose to the facts that you had already communicated: “Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently, but sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.”

Finally, you used a phrase to emphasize your point: “in reality.”

As a result of this process, using your intent to determine the content of your sentence, you went from the kernel sentence “Sharks attack” to its final, expanded, complete version: “Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently, but, in reality, sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.”

This approach can work for any sentence concerning any topic.

Five Ideas for Research Reports

Copyright 2018 by Gary L. Pullman

1. Fonts

I use Open office, a free word processor that works as well as the Microsoft Office word processor. Open office provides hundreds of fonts, including a few fancy or exotic ones, such as Ar Decode, Ar Delaney, Blackladder ITC, Chiller, Comic Sans MS, Curlz MT, Edwardian Script ITC, Goudy Stout, Matura MT Script Capitals, Jokerman, Kristen ITC, MS Outlook, Ravie, and Wingdings (Wingdings).

One day, while searching for a topic for a Listverse article, I thought there might be one at my fingertips. Literally, there was one: what is the origin of ten unusual fonts? (Listverse requires a list of 10 related items.) The result was that, with a bit of research, I earned $100 for my article, “Top 10 Origins of Famous Fonts” (http://listverse.com/2017/05/23/top-10-origins-of-famous-fonts/). (See? Research can pay!)

2. U. S. State Boundaries

We've all seen political maps of the United States. We've noticed how bizarre state boundaries are. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to why the states have the shapes and sizes they do. Texas is HUGE, Rhode Island is tiny. Michigan resembles a mitten; Virginia, a lopsided triangle; Oklahoma, a cooking pot; and Colorado, a giant rectangle.

The boundaries of the states look as though they were determined by a madman or madwoman.

I thought, somebody should write a book about this!

Somebody (Mark Unger) did: How the States Got Their Shapes: https://amzn.to/2nR0fjp

He even turned it into a television show broadcast on the History channel.

There's even a website about the book: https://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-shapes

3. Mythological Creatures

Centaurs. Cyclopes. Gorgons. Lamia. Mermaids. Minotaurs. Satyrs. How did they come to be? What made someone imagine such combinations as humans and horses, one-eye giants, women with snakes for hair, snake women, fish women, men and bulls, and goat men?

Scientists and historians claim to know—about some of the origins of these fantastic mythological creatures, at least. Centaurs were created by people who'd never seen mounted horsemen; cyclopes were invented to account for a mastodon skull; and mermaids were inspired by manatees. Or so they say. But what about the other fantastic creatures of Greek and Roman, Teutonic, and other mythologies?

4. Maps That Show Monsters

I have also long been intrigued by the monsters that appear on ancient and medieval maps. Why this creature and not another? Why is the wind (personified as a man blowing air) blowing on this area of the world and not another? How did the cartographers, or mapmakers, know the coordinates of this mysterious island or this particular sea monster?

Once again, someone else (Edward Brooke-Hitching) wondered the same thing, did some research, and wrote The Phantom Atlas: The Greatest Myths, Lies and Blunders of Maps: https://amzn.to/2w01zEX

5. Sketchy Dinosaurs

Originally, paleontologists believed that dinosaurs were dim-witted, cold-blooded, slow-moving creatures. A few decades later, these same dinosaur doctors reconsidered. Now, the same dinosaurs were thought to be intelligent, warm-blooded, fast-moving creatures. Oh! And, the new school opinion was that dinosaurs descended from birds; previously, paleontologists had supposed them to have evolved from reptiles.

These weren't just changes of thought; they were completely opposite views. If dinosaur doctors could change their minds completely about such “facts” as these, how sound were their theories, overall? How sketchy were dinosaurs, anyway?

As it turns out, very. One only has to take note of the multitude of qualifications in The Scientific American's Book of Dinosaurs: The Best Minds in Paleontology Create a Portrait of the Prehistoric Era, edited by Gregory S. Paul (https://amzn.to/2nOSMRM), to get an idea just how shaky the whole “scientific” construct of dinosaurs' appearances, behaviors, and, well, reality truly is. As Mark Twain observed, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

What worked for me (and Mark Unger and Edward Brooke-Hitching and “the best minds in paleontology”) can work for you, too, if you're writing a report based on research:

1. Think about a topic of interest to you that contains a mystery.
2. Using a variety of reliable sources, investigate the mystery.
3. Report your findings in a clear, well-organized, grammatically correct, and readable fashion, citing your sources, and providing plenty of substantiating details.