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, 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.

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.'

--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.'

--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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.’

--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?