What does Sherlock Holmes aim at?

Sherlock Holmes has a method. What is he aiming at when he is exercising this method?

We all play detective sometimes. What should we be aiming at when we are playing detective?

I am asking this question because a method is employed to achieve some aim. If we know the aim we may be able to work out the method ourselves. So the question is, what are we aiming at when we are playing Sherlock Holmes?

Let's try out a few answers to see if any of them fits:

Solving a crime?
This can't be the right answer because, as we have pointed out in the last post, when we play detective we are not always trying to solve a crime: we could be trying to crack a cipher, for example.

Providing a solution to a mystery?
When we are playing Sherlock Holmes don't we always have some mystery that we want to solve? A mystery can be about anything, not necessarily a crime. A string of symbols that apparently doesn't make sense could be intriguing. Perhaps there is message behind it. If there is, can we find out? So we play Sherlock Holmes. Natural phenomena can be puzzling, so we engage in scientific research to find out what is really going on. Is this the right answer to our question then? When we play Sherlock Holmes are we aiming at solving some mystery?

I think the answer has to be no. Take the case of Watson's trip to the post-office: there is no mystery to it. If Sherlock Holmes wants to know where Watson went that morning all he has to do is ask.

The truth?
In solving crimes, in cracking ciphers, in scientific research--in all these endeavors we are aiming at the truth; are we not? In solving crimes we don't want to accuse the wrong person. In cracking ciphers we don't want to replace the true message with something we ourselves make up. In science we want to know what the world is really like; we don't want to deceive ourselves by adhering to superstitions.

Is this the right answer then? In playing Sherlock Holmes our aim is to get at the truth; is this not so?

Strange as it may sound, I don't think it is. Certainly Sherlock Holmes is interested in the truth but then most people are. Journalists get themselves into a habit of double checking their sources; why? To make sure they report the truth. So, yes Sherlock Holmes is interested in the truth but the kind of truth he aims at is more difficult to obtain than the kind that journalists report after double checking sources. Indeed, the kind of truth that Sherlock Holmes aims at is so difficult to obtain that usually no one would blame him if it were missing in some details. As Sherlock Holmes himself says, when he finds out what happens in a crime, usually he only knows in 'essentials', not in every single detail.

Truth of things hidden?
Why is it hard to obtain the kind of truth we seek when playing detective? Watson marvels at what Sherlock Holmes is able do; why? If Sherlock Holmes had accompanied Watson to the post-office, would Watson still marvel?

Clearly, the reason why the kind of truth detectives are interested in is difficult to obtain is that it is about things hidden, things that the detectives themselves cannot see. Now since this is the case, should we not say that our aim when playing Sherlock Holmes should be the truth of those things that we want to know but which are hidden?

This I think will not be an acceptable answer either. For when we play Sherlock Holmes we do not look for just anything that is hidden and try to see what we can find out about them; we look only for things for which we have clues. Not everything that is hidden can be known, only those that leave behind clues.

Perhaps then this is the answer to our question. Our question is, what should Sherlock Holmes aim at? It seems the right answer is, he should aim at truths of things hidden, which we want to know and for which there are clues.

Should we stop here? Should we take what has just been said as the answer?

We could but I suggest we do not. Detectives are practical people. The answer just given is not likely to mean much to them. It is very well to say we should get at the truth but how in practice do we do it when all that we have are clues? So instead, I suggest we adopt the following answer, which is slightly different but has the merit of being easier to understand. In playing Sherlock Holmes we should aim at the reconstruction of those things hidden, which we want to know, basing our reconstruction on clues. Put this way we can see that our answer conforms to actual practice. In practice, when we are trying to solve a crime we are in fact trying to recreate that crime (not by committing it again but in words or through play-acting). When we are cracking a cipher we are trying to recreate that cipher. And in the case of science, we are trying to recreate in symbolic form structures present in the universe. In all these instances, it is clear that we have to rely on clues. The more clues we have, and the more significant these clues, the more accurate and more complete the reconstruction. Once a reconstruction is in place we can tell what is true based on this reconstruction. Is it true that the butler fired the fatal shot? Our reconstruction tells us that it is. Did the butler intend to shoot the victim? We do not know because our reconstruction is incomplete (due to the lack of sufficient clues).

What Sherlock Holmes is able to do often surprises people. Sherlock Holmes wants to know about things hidden. But how can things hidden be known?! To say that they can seems to be a contradiction in terms. However, if we look at what Sherlock Holmes is aiming at slightly differently all the mystery disappears. The reconstruction of things whose originals no longer exist is done all time. It is just a matter of whether we have enough clues. The more clues we have the closer to success we are. Do we need complete success all the time? No, not when it is the truth we are looking for. Partial knowledge is better than complete ignorance.