How does Sherlock Holmes know?
He knows by following clues and developing new clues from old.
He does not know instantaneously. He does not chew over the idea that the butler did it for a few hours or a few days and then come out and announce to the whole world: 'Yes the butler did it!' Sherlock Holmes does not proceed in this fashion.
He needs clues. He has to follow a process--a process in which he looks for clues, figures out what they mean, from which answers he then develops more clues, and so on, and on, until the truth finally reveals itself to him. There can be nobody else except the butler.
Truth hinges on a process. The process leads to the conclusion, the butler did it. It is not Sherlock Holmes saying so; it is the process.
Under the rule of law, guilt is also determined by process. You have to go through a certain process before you can say, the person accused has broken the law.
Under the rule of law, you cannot send a person to prison without following due process.
Is there climate change caused by human activities? How are we to answer this question? By chewing it over for hours and days? Or by looking to some process?
Sunday, December 11, 2016
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Punchline
... when context is rich enough we can read another person's mind. A good example of this is the punchline.
A comedian takes time to set up the context ... with narration, with repetition, with tone of voice, with body language .... They will use every trick in the book to draw you along. Then, when they sense that you are ready, bam! they deliver the punchline.
See also Mind reading
A comedian takes time to set up the context ... with narration, with repetition, with tone of voice, with body language .... They will use every trick in the book to draw you along. Then, when they sense that you are ready, bam! they deliver the punchline.
See also Mind reading
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Pavlov's dogs
Pavlov trained his dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell.
He did this first by offering food to the dogs at the same time as he rang the bell.
After the dogs had gotten used to this he withdrew the food.
The dogs still salivated at the sound of the bell.
---
The dogs never asked, why no food this time with the bell?
Should they ask?
They should. It's a new clue!
He did this first by offering food to the dogs at the same time as he rang the bell.
After the dogs had gotten used to this he withdrew the food.
The dogs still salivated at the sound of the bell.
---
The dogs never asked, why no food this time with the bell?
Should they ask?
They should. It's a new clue!
A curious bunch
Codebreakers are a curious bunch. Where people see nonsense, they suspect hidden messages. So they wade in. Sometimes they find what they are looking for; sometimes not.
Babies are codebreakers; they are also curious. Why are these grown-ups waving their arms and nodding their heads and making all these noises? Are they trying to tell me something?
Curiosity kills the cat. Should we be curious? Should we play Sherlock Holmes?
During the Scientific Revolution one of the hurdle scientists had to face was the argument, if God had meant us to know all these things scientists were trying to find out, He would have told us. What the scientists were doing, they say, was blasphemous.
Babies are codebreakers; they are also curious. Why are these grown-ups waving their arms and nodding their heads and making all these noises? Are they trying to tell me something?
Curiosity kills the cat. Should we be curious? Should we play Sherlock Holmes?
'My name is Sherlock Holmes. It is my business to know what other people don't know.'
Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle
During the Scientific Revolution one of the hurdle scientists had to face was the argument, if God had meant us to know all these things scientists were trying to find out, He would have told us. What the scientists were doing, they say, was blasphemous.
Monday, October 3, 2016
Mistakes to be corrected ASAP
Hidden mistakes--whether single or multiple--are difficult to correct.
Normal mistakes are easier. But this assume we would take the trouble.
Unfortunately, human beings being what they are, sometimes they don't take the trouble. Normal mistakes are left to accumulate, untouched, until they become hidden mistakes.
Those interested in playing Sherlock Holmes would do well to pick up some of those customs and habits--and there are many of them--that would make it possible for mistakes to be corrected as soon as possible.
One suggestion from Sherlock Holmes himself:
Sherlock Holmes lives in a country where there is a long tradition of critical discussions. In such a society you only need to state a case and there are bound to be lots of critics to tell you where your mistakes are.
Normal mistakes are easier. But this assume we would take the trouble.
Unfortunately, human beings being what they are, sometimes they don't take the trouble. Normal mistakes are left to accumulate, untouched, until they become hidden mistakes.
Those interested in playing Sherlock Holmes would do well to pick up some of those customs and habits--and there are many of them--that would make it possible for mistakes to be corrected as soon as possible.
One suggestion from Sherlock Holmes himself:
'Nothing clears up a case so much as stating it to another person.'
Sherlock Holmes, Silver Blaze
Sherlock Holmes lives in a country where there is a long tradition of critical discussions. In such a society you only need to state a case and there are bound to be lots of critics to tell you where your mistakes are.
Correcting mistakes
In following clues it is easy to make mistakes. For this reason correcting mistakes is a major concern in an investigation.
But this is not necessarily an easy task. After all, we are working in the dark; we don't know yet what the truth is. Which has prompted some to ask, if we don't know what is true, how do we know what is false?
There are three kinds of mistakes when following clues:
Normal mistakes
I call those mistakes 'normal' which can be corrected in the normal course of an investigation. In an investigation it is normal to review often what we have done. One of the purposes of such review is to to correct mistakes. For example, we might have been too hasty in pinning our suspicion on the stable boy as the chief culprit in the commission of the crime. Now evidence has surfaced that he might be innocent. Under such circumstances we will have to re-appraise the investigation as we have carried it out so far. We will have to ask, what other suspects have we left out?
Hidden mistake, single
When we make serious mistakes, our investigation will come to a halt; progress will become impossible; clues will dry up and we don't know where to turn. We review what we have done but there is no obvious mistake. What mistakes there are, must be well hidden, we say to ourselves.
What do we do?
The common practice is to retrace our steps and re-do them one by one, starting with the most recent. If the investigation is able to resume after a step has been re-done, we have corrected the mistake.
Hidden mistakes, multiple
When we suspect hidden mistakes, we usually suspect there is only one. When there is only one, we can correct it by retracing our steps.
What if there is more than one?
We will have to re-do the whole investigation!
But this is not necessarily an easy task. After all, we are working in the dark; we don't know yet what the truth is. Which has prompted some to ask, if we don't know what is true, how do we know what is false?
There are three kinds of mistakes when following clues:
- Normal
- Hidden, single
- Hidden, multiple
Normal mistakes
I call those mistakes 'normal' which can be corrected in the normal course of an investigation. In an investigation it is normal to review often what we have done. One of the purposes of such review is to to correct mistakes. For example, we might have been too hasty in pinning our suspicion on the stable boy as the chief culprit in the commission of the crime. Now evidence has surfaced that he might be innocent. Under such circumstances we will have to re-appraise the investigation as we have carried it out so far. We will have to ask, what other suspects have we left out?
Hidden mistake, single
When we make serious mistakes, our investigation will come to a halt; progress will become impossible; clues will dry up and we don't know where to turn. We review what we have done but there is no obvious mistake. What mistakes there are, must be well hidden, we say to ourselves.
What do we do?
The common practice is to retrace our steps and re-do them one by one, starting with the most recent. If the investigation is able to resume after a step has been re-done, we have corrected the mistake.
Hidden mistakes, multiple
When we suspect hidden mistakes, we usually suspect there is only one. When there is only one, we can correct it by retracing our steps.
What if there is more than one?
We will have to re-do the whole investigation!
Easy to make mistakes
Following clues is a complex business. It is easy to make mistakes. After all, we are working in the dark.
Does Sherlock Holmes make mistakes? He would be the first person to tell you that he does. In Silver Blaze he says,
The Art of Detection is a complex art. It is not one in which anyone can claim to have reached perfection. Sherlock Holmes, a dedicated student of this Art, points out ...
Does Sherlock Holmes make mistakes? He would be the first person to tell you that he does. In Silver Blaze he says,
… I made a blunder, my dear Watson--which is, I am afraid, a more common occurrence than anyone would think who only knew me through your memoirs.
The Art of Detection is a complex art. It is not one in which anyone can claim to have reached perfection. Sherlock Holmes, a dedicated student of this Art, points out ...
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.
--Sherlock Holmes, A study in Scarlet
Surrounded
We are surrounded by structures.
There are structures within structures.
There are structures sprouting out in all directions--nay, in n-dimensions.
There is so much for humans to find out.
Unfortunately, we can only focus on a few.
There are structures within structures.
There are structures sprouting out in all directions--nay, in n-dimensions.
There is so much for humans to find out.
Unfortunately, we can only focus on a few.
Three fronts
When we follow clues we advance on three fronts.
We gather evidence (for example, footprints).
We interpret the evidence (whose footprints?).
We construct theory (re-create the crime).
We gather evidence (for example, footprints).
We interpret the evidence (whose footprints?).
We construct theory (re-create the crime).
We don't do this sequentially but in parallel, as opportunity affords. And while these three fronts are advancing more or less in parallel they influence each other; they provide feedback for each other.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
How to develop new clues
In investigations we need evidence. The evidence we have to start with is usually not sufficient so that we will have to look for more. To determine whether a new, suspected piece of evidence is relevant we apply the theory we are developing to it to see if it can be partially deciphered. If it can, and moreover leaves only a small gap, we have in that small gap a new clue.
So, in investigations we look for evidence. We apply any theory we have developed to the evidence. In doing so, if fortune smiles on us, we develop new clues.
To make it easier for fortune to smile on us we gather as much evidence as we can.
Example:
There is a ten letter word in the new piece of evidence. Nine of the ten letters we already know. These nine letters then is a clue to the tenth. And it is a new clue since we could not decipher it based on former evidence.
So, in investigations we look for evidence. We apply any theory we have developed to the evidence. In doing so, if fortune smiles on us, we develop new clues.
To make it easier for fortune to smile on us we gather as much evidence as we can.
Relevant evidence
To solve a crime; to carry out any kind of investigation; we need evidence. In cracking a cipher the cryptogram is the evidence. This evidence leads us to the conclusion that the hidden message is such and such.
Suppose that in cracking a cipher, half way through we find we do not have enough evidence; the cryptogram is too short.
So we look for more evidence ...
By 'evidence' we mean of course 'relevant evidence'. How do we determine that we have found relevant evidence?
In cracking a cipher, we cannot take just any suspicious-looking scribbling as evidence for the cipher we are cracking. When we say we need more evidence, we mean we need more from the same cipher.
Suppose we now find some more scribbling. It looks like the old scribbling. But is it from the same cipher?
How do we tell?
This is what we do. The original scribbling has allowed us to recover part of the cipher. We now apply the part of the cipher we already know to the new scribbling, to see if it can be partially deciphered. If it can, we have discovered new evidence; the new scribbling is from the same cipher.
Strange but true:
When we are looking for new evidence, we do not do so with an empty mind to assure theory-neutrality. Instead, we interpret the new evidence according to the theory we are in the process of developing.
Suppose that in cracking a cipher, half way through we find we do not have enough evidence; the cryptogram is too short.
So we look for more evidence ...
By 'evidence' we mean of course 'relevant evidence'. How do we determine that we have found relevant evidence?
In cracking a cipher, we cannot take just any suspicious-looking scribbling as evidence for the cipher we are cracking. When we say we need more evidence, we mean we need more from the same cipher.
Suppose we now find some more scribbling. It looks like the old scribbling. But is it from the same cipher?
How do we tell?
This is what we do. The original scribbling has allowed us to recover part of the cipher. We now apply the part of the cipher we already know to the new scribbling, to see if it can be partially deciphered. If it can, we have discovered new evidence; the new scribbling is from the same cipher.
Strange but true:
When we are looking for new evidence, we do not do so with an empty mind to assure theory-neutrality. Instead, we interpret the new evidence according to the theory we are in the process of developing.
Direct experience
To a lot of people direct experience is more certain than conclusions arrived at by following clues. To them inferring that the butler is innocent can never be more certain than actually seeing the butler shoot the victim.
To detectives the reverse is the case: direct experience is open to doubt; which can only be resolved by following clues. Yes, the butler was shooting at the victim but clues told us the victim was dead before he was shot.
To detectives the reverse is the case: direct experience is open to doubt; which can only be resolved by following clues. Yes, the butler was shooting at the victim but clues told us the victim was dead before he was shot.
Eyewitnesses
Eyewitnesses to the same event often contradict each other. How do we find out who is correct (if any)?
We can find out only by following clues, that is, by playing Sherlock Holmes. If there are not enough clues to decide, we will have to find more.
Detectives have to be suspicious if they are to be good at their job. It is not just that people sometimes lie but even well-intentioned people sometimes make mistakes. From experience detectives have learnt it is best to take everything with a grain of salt. Listen to what people have to say; see what 'evidence' you can find; but decide whom to trust and what evidence to take as genuine only after the investigation, not before.
We can find out only by following clues, that is, by playing Sherlock Holmes. If there are not enough clues to decide, we will have to find more.
Detectives have to be suspicious if they are to be good at their job. It is not just that people sometimes lie but even well-intentioned people sometimes make mistakes. From experience detectives have learnt it is best to take everything with a grain of salt. Listen to what people have to say; see what 'evidence' you can find; but decide whom to trust and what evidence to take as genuine only after the investigation, not before.
Saturday, October 1, 2016
What should we do when we play Sherlock Holmes?
We should develop new clues from old. For, if new clues do appear, it means we have interpreted the old clues correctly.
Clues enable us both to discover and to evaluate. Clues do not just suggest theories which we then evaluate separately, as is commonly thought. Clues can lead to new clues. When they do, we know we are moving in the right direction.
This is to say, the context of discovery is also the context of evaluation. The two are one and the same.
Clues enable us both to discover and to evaluate. Clues do not just suggest theories which we then evaluate separately, as is commonly thought. Clues can lead to new clues. When they do, we know we are moving in the right direction.
This is to say, the context of discovery is also the context of evaluation. The two are one and the same.
Descartes on confessions
According to Descartes--who is sometimes called the Father of Modern Philosophy--there is no alternative besides confessions even if they are sometimes false. If we are to have any knowledge at all, he thinks ultimately we have to rely on confessions. Not, however, the confessions of just anybody, but God’s. What God lets us apprehend clearly and distinctly, Descartes says, must be true. This is the way God has chosen. Of course, He could have chosen otherwise but faith, Descartes says, requires us to believe He has not.
Human Rights
By introducing the theseological method to crime investigation, Sherlock Holmes has contributed to the advancement of human rights.
Once upon a time to catch criminals the common practice was not to follow clues, but to round up likely and not-so-likely suspects and torture them until they confess. Torture often produces false confessions besides being an affront to human rights.
See also Do Criminals have to Confess
Once upon a time to catch criminals the common practice was not to follow clues, but to round up likely and not-so-likely suspects and torture them until they confess. Torture often produces false confessions besides being an affront to human rights.
See also Do Criminals have to Confess
Mind Reading
In playing Sherlock Holmes we follow clues. Some clues are simple, so simple that we all know how to make sense of them. Who for example is not able to correct a typographical error? But what are we doing when correcting typographical mistakes? We are relying on context for clues; context tells us how the mistake should be corrected. Now we depend on context not just in correcting typographical errors but in filling in missing knowledge in other kinds of instances. When context is rich enough we can figure out what is in a person’s mind without that person telling us; we have all done this frequently enough with people we know.
Friday, September 30, 2016
The Myth of a New Method
To explain the success of the Scientific Revolution a myth has grown up that this Revolution was made possible by a New Method, a method which was totally different from the way philosophers used to think. But this is just a myth. There was no New Method. Those scientists who brought in the New Science were not using a New Method. They were merely applying an old method--the theseological method--to the study of nature. The application was new; but the method was old. In the many centuries before the Scientific Revolution, codebreakers had been following clues and developing new clues from old.
Sherlock Holmes, a codebreaker himself like many of the early scientists, takes for granted that the method used in breaking codes, in solving crimes, and in doing science, is one and the same. In his later years his interests had been turning from crime to the natural sciences.
'Of late I have been tempted to look into the problems furnished by nature rather than those more superficial ones for which our artificial state of society is responsible.'
Sherlock Holmes, a codebreaker himself like many of the early scientists, takes for granted that the method used in breaking codes, in solving crimes, and in doing science, is one and the same. In his later years his interests had been turning from crime to the natural sciences.
'Of late I have been tempted to look into the problems furnished by nature rather than those more superficial ones for which our artificial state of society is responsible.'
--Sherlock Holmes, The Final Problem
Why Follow Clues?
It seems silly to ask. We follow clues in order that we can discover; what else?
But turn the question around and we find something odd. Instead of asking why we follow clues, ask how we discover.
If we ask how we discover, the usual answer is not, we discover by following clues! Instead, it is something about observations, about not having preconceived ideas, about the need for objectivity, mixed in with something about logic and reasoning, and what else.
Strange!
So, seriously, how do we discover?
I say we discover by following clues. Which means, we have to know what clues are.
But turn the question around and we find something odd. Instead of asking why we follow clues, ask how we discover.
If we ask how we discover, the usual answer is not, we discover by following clues! Instead, it is something about observations, about not having preconceived ideas, about the need for objectivity, mixed in with something about logic and reasoning, and what else.
Strange!
So, seriously, how do we discover?
I say we discover by following clues. Which means, we have to know what clues are.
Galileo's Telescope
Galileo heard the news that somebody in Holland had invented a telescope. Instead of waiting for one to be sent from Holland he invented his own. But there was a difference between the one in Holland and the one he invented. The one in Holland had convex lenses at both ends. The one invented by Galileo had convex at one end and concave at the other. Apparently he did not have enough clues to fully duplicate the Dutch invention.
'What one man can invent, another can discover.'
'What one man can invent, another can discover.'
--Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Dancing Men
Method
Sherlock Holmes follows a method. This method tells him to follow clues and develop new clues from old. An important characteristic of this method is that while following it we know by ourselves whether we are doing things right (the Right Direction Catechism). I call this method the theseological method.
Sherlock Holmes has given different names to the method he follows. In The Adventure of the Abbey Grange he calls it the art of detection.
'... I propose to spend my retirement years in the composition of a textbook which shall focus the whole Art of Detection into one volume.'
In A Study in Scarlet he calls it 'reasoning backwards'.
'In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backwards. 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.'
Sherlock Holmes has given different names to the method he follows. In The Adventure of the Abbey Grange he calls it the art of detection.
'... I propose to spend my retirement years in the composition of a textbook which shall focus the whole Art of Detection into one volume.'
--Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Abbey Grange
In A Study in Scarlet he calls it 'reasoning backwards'.
'In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backwards. 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.'
--Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Scarlet
Sherlock Holmes never made clear to the public how his method works. He said he would do this in a textbook on the subject--on 'the whole Art of Detection'--when he retired. But he never got around to it.
He seemed not too happy with Watson's depiction of his method in his narratives.
'If I claim full justice for my art, it is because it is an impersonal thing--a thing beyond myself. Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.'
--Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Copper Beeches
Would Sherlock Holmes be disappointed with my suggestion that the method he followed was the theseological method?
I don't think he would be. It is clear that he was aware that the importance of a method was 'an impersonal thing', a thing 'beyond' any individual.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
How Do You Know?
People often think there is only one way to answer this question and
that is by citing some authority; which of course raises the question how Authority knows.
But there is another way to answer this question. We know by following clues; that is, by playing Sherlock Holmes. This answer does not lead to infinite regress. Clues allow us to reconstruct those structures of which they are the characteristics.
The authoritarian view of knowledge--that knowledge ultimately depends on authority--has undesirable consequences. For one it leads some to claim that they are the ultimate authorities and thus everyone should obey them.
But there is another way to answer this question. We know by following clues; that is, by playing Sherlock Holmes. This answer does not lead to infinite regress. Clues allow us to reconstruct those structures of which they are the characteristics.
The authoritarian view of knowledge--that knowledge ultimately depends on authority--has undesirable consequences. For one it leads some to claim that they are the ultimate authorities and thus everyone should obey them.
Why Not More Often?
We all play Sherlock Holmes sometimes.
Why only sometimes? Why not more often? By playing Sherlock Holmes we discover things on our own, without being told. Surely it is more fun to live this way.
Moreover, things we discover by ourselves we don't forget.
Why don't we play Sherlock Holmes more often? We all have the ability; we all have broken at least one cipher; we are all--like Sherlock Holmes--codebreakers.
To answer our question we need only look back each to our own history. Once we have learned our first language, how is it used for by our elders, people who have only the kindest of intentions where our welfare is concerned?
It is used to tell us what to do and what to believe.
Why only sometimes? Why not more often? By playing Sherlock Holmes we discover things on our own, without being told. Surely it is more fun to live this way.
Moreover, things we discover by ourselves we don't forget.
Why don't we play Sherlock Holmes more often? We all have the ability; we all have broken at least one cipher; we are all--like Sherlock Holmes--codebreakers.
To answer our question we need only look back each to our own history. Once we have learned our first language, how is it used for by our elders, people who have only the kindest of intentions where our welfare is concerned?
It is used to tell us what to do and what to believe.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Theseology
There is an art in following clues. Sherlock Holmes is a supreme practitioner of this art. He is always on the lookout for clues and he has a knack for figuring out what they mean.
Clues are the characteristics of structures. To be good at detecting clues we have to be familiar with lots and lots of structures.
But this is not enough. Sometimes the structures we are faced with in an investigation are not known to us. In such a case we would be hard put to detect any clues.
What do we do then?
We will have to invent structure after structure until we find one that suits. A person who follows clues has to be creative--like all other artists.
But besides being an art, following clues is also a science.
Why is it that when clues lead to new clues, we know we are moving in the right direction?
This is because a structure has many characteristics. The more of these characteristics we recognise in the structure we are investigating, the easier it is to pin it down.
There is an art in following clues. But it is also at the same time a science. Following clues is both an art and a science.
But this art / science has never been given a name. I propose we call it theseology.
Theseus went into the Labyrinth to kill the Minotaur. To ensure that he could come out again he unwound a spool of thread as he went in. A clue is often compared to a thread.
Clues are the characteristics of structures. To be good at detecting clues we have to be familiar with lots and lots of structures.
But this is not enough. Sometimes the structures we are faced with in an investigation are not known to us. In such a case we would be hard put to detect any clues.
What do we do then?
We will have to invent structure after structure until we find one that suits. A person who follows clues has to be creative--like all other artists.
But besides being an art, following clues is also a science.
Why is it that when clues lead to new clues, we know we are moving in the right direction?
This is because a structure has many characteristics. The more of these characteristics we recognise in the structure we are investigating, the easier it is to pin it down.
There is an art in following clues. But it is also at the same time a science. Following clues is both an art and a science.
But this art / science has never been given a name. I propose we call it theseology.
Theseus went into the Labyrinth to kill the Minotaur. To ensure that he could come out again he unwound a spool of thread as he went in. A clue is often compared to a thread.
I have now in my hands … all the threads which have formed such a tangle. There are, of course, details to be filled in, but I am as certain of all the main facts … as if I had seen them with my own eyes.
--Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Scarlet
Sherlock Hollmeses the Day We Are Born
We are born Sherlock Holmeses.
All of us.
That's why we all play Sherlock Holmes sometimes.
Sherlock Holmes follows clues to solve crimes, to break ciphers--for example, the Dancing Men Cipher, and to have fun.
What is it to break a cipher?
A string of Dancing Men makes no sense--unless you are provided with the cipher. But Sherlock Holmes was never given the cipher by anybody. Yet he could understand the Dancing Men. He could, because he had broken the cipher; he worked it out all by himself.
The Dancing Men is a language, secret to us, but not secret to those who knows the cipher. To Sherlock Holmes the Dancing Men was originally a secret language. After he had broken it, it was secret no more.
Now we all learn our first language at our mother's knees. How do we do it?
We have no language to begin with. All languages are foreign to us; they are all secret languages. Yet at some point one of them stops being secret. We understand what we are told and we are understood in return.
We have broken the cipher!
How?
By following clues, of course.
See also We Are All Codebreakers
All of us.
That's why we all play Sherlock Holmes sometimes.
Sherlock Holmes follows clues to solve crimes, to break ciphers--for example, the Dancing Men Cipher, and to have fun.
What is it to break a cipher?
A string of Dancing Men makes no sense--unless you are provided with the cipher. But Sherlock Holmes was never given the cipher by anybody. Yet he could understand the Dancing Men. He could, because he had broken the cipher; he worked it out all by himself.
The Dancing Men is a language, secret to us, but not secret to those who knows the cipher. To Sherlock Holmes the Dancing Men was originally a secret language. After he had broken it, it was secret no more.
Now we all learn our first language at our mother's knees. How do we do it?
We have no language to begin with. All languages are foreign to us; they are all secret languages. Yet at some point one of them stops being secret. We understand what we are told and we are understood in return.
We have broken the cipher!
How?
By following clues, of course.
See also We Are All Codebreakers
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
The Many Cases of Disappearing Clues
How does Sherlock Holmes know? He knows by following clues. How does he know his answers to the clues are right? He knows they are right when clues lead to new clues.
There is something interesting to notice here. Clues allow Sherlock Holmes to discover and at the same time to evaluate results.
Galileo understood this point.
‘All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.’
The dual role that clues play in investigations is often overlooked. The common misconception is, clues allow us to discover; evaluation (of results) is separate. Nay, very often the roles clues play are forgotten altogether; the only thing left is a simple explanation of why the results are correct.
Sherlock Holmes is not beyond using this simple trick to impress Watson. In A Scandal in Bohemia he was able to tell Watson--without Watson first telling him--that Watson had been caught in the rain recently and that he had hired a servant girl who was not all that good at her job. Asked how he knew, he said,
'It is simplicity itself ... my eyes tell me that on the inside of your left shoe, just where the firelight strikes it, the leather is scored by six almost parallel cuts. Obviously they have been caused by someone who has very carelessly scraped round the edges of the sole in order to remove crusted mud from it. Hence, you see, my double deduction that you had been out in vile weather, and that you had a particularly malignant boot-slitting specimen of the London slavey.'
The marks on Watson's shoe--who else but a Sherlock Holmes would notice?
There is something interesting to notice here. Clues allow Sherlock Holmes to discover and at the same time to evaluate results.
Galileo understood this point.
‘All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.’
--Galileo Galilei
The dual role that clues play in investigations is often overlooked. The common misconception is, clues allow us to discover; evaluation (of results) is separate. Nay, very often the roles clues play are forgotten altogether; the only thing left is a simple explanation of why the results are correct.
Sherlock Holmes is not beyond using this simple trick to impress Watson. In A Scandal in Bohemia he was able to tell Watson--without Watson first telling him--that Watson had been caught in the rain recently and that he had hired a servant girl who was not all that good at her job. Asked how he knew, he said,
'It is simplicity itself ... my eyes tell me that on the inside of your left shoe, just where the firelight strikes it, the leather is scored by six almost parallel cuts. Obviously they have been caused by someone who has very carelessly scraped round the edges of the sole in order to remove crusted mud from it. Hence, you see, my double deduction that you had been out in vile weather, and that you had a particularly malignant boot-slitting specimen of the London slavey.'
The marks on Watson's shoe--who else but a Sherlock Holmes would notice?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)