Journal Entry 17th November 1887

Darwin Ching

Wow, todays been such a blast! As I was walking out of my class on the
historical and philosophical investigations into the physical and natural world at
Cambridge University, I was greeted with quite a sight the legendary detective
Sherlock Holmes and his assistant Dr. John Watson standing around the square
outside lecture hall. The two gentlemen were quarreling about the novel Copernican
Theory of Heliocentrism that has been recently accepted. Dr. Watson was
attempting to convince his friend that the theory does indeed provide the best
available description of the composition of the Solar System but Holmes thinks
otherwise. I was compelled to give my opinion on the matter as I have reason to
believe that there is some sort of fundamental misunderstanding taking place
especially on Holmes side of the debate.

While I disagree with Holmes stance, he does make a fair point. Holmes
mentioned that the Heliocentric theory would not make a pennyworth of difference
to me or to my work as he criticized the practicality of the theory in their little
debate. His reasoning is justified, as it is indeed unusual for one to require
knowledge of the relative positions of the planets in order to carry on with
investigative work relating mostly to murder crime. Strictly speaking, Holmes wasnt
exactly rejecting the theory completely, but was merely critiquing it in terms of its
success in practical applications. Quite a pragmatic individual he sure is eh?
Furthermore, the Copernican theory of Heliocentrism was accepted more than three
centuries ago so it makes sense that Mr. Holmes himself feels skeptical about such a
dated theory.

I can understand Holmes feeling of suspicion towards the theory of

Heliocentrism, however, I must criticize his close-minded way of thinking. His
method of theory assessment seems similar to what was employed during Aristotles
time period, the Aristotelian-medieval method, which states that theories were
required to be intuitively true, especially to an experienced individual. In this case,
Heliocentrism was not intuitive, because of the limited explanations by which
Aristotelian physics provided. Many theories nowadays are far from being intuitive
and yet many of them are being accepted. Should Holmes continue to employ his
old methods, he would not be able to accept new and upcoming contemporary
theories since it cant be intuitively grasped.

Holmes also claims that he can deduce the answer by simply looking into the
facts of the matter stored in [his] great brain-attic. No matter how you see it, this
is, in my opinion, a very limited approach to his investigative line of work. Holmes
cant possibly experience everything in the world during his lifetime and yet he
continued to boast about being aware of every single claim about this earth and
the universe around it which astonished me greatly. It is quite appalling to think
that such a talented and intellectual individual can, at the same time, be so
conceited.

As a side note, I would like to consider a fundamental problem that remains

persistent in Holmes investigative work that is the problem of post hoc explanations
which states that it is easy to be smart after the fact. Anyone can explain a crime
scene with a number of probable causes, which makes mystery solving prone to
data dredging evoking the sense that humans tend to seek patterns within a pool
of random information.

As confirmed by the business card that slipped out of the folded newspaper
Holmes gave me shortly after their debate, he claims to base his understanding of
the world through observations, deductions, and intuitions. From here on is where I
began to see the major cracks in Holmes methods. Holmes claims that his
investigation techniques are considered science and that his method of deductions
lead him towards the truth. To argue against his point, let me make it clear that as
long as his deductions follow from evidence through observations, then his science
of deduction is considered empirical. As far as Im concerned, empirical sciences all
come across the same problems the problem of theory-ladenness, sensations, and
inductions.

The problem of theory-ladenness, I believe, presents a very strong argument

as to how Holmes statement of truth can never be labelled as infallible. I for one
believe that our accepted theories shape the results of observations. Surely, Mr.
Holmes must have come across cases where he puts his handy-dandy magnifying
glass to use. Conclusions drawn from this act alone comes with a lot of tacit
assumptions such as theories of physiology and optics. In other words, results that
follow from this action can never be considered a pure statement of fact simply
because it is theory-laden.

In addition, the problem of sensations also presents another interesting point

as Holmes would never be in a position to know if his sensations give him an
accurate depiction of the world as it is in reality as his senses are always prone to
deceit. In Holmes case, a simple example would be in a situation where victims or
bystanders recount a recent crime as they have witnessed it. Clearly it would be
ludicrous to say that 100% of the information conveyed through the witnesss eyes
and through Holmes hearing is the absolute truth as it is.

Furthermore, the problem with inductions is that the singular propositions that
our experience provide us cannot possibly allow us to arrive at a general conclusion.
We currently live in a world where probabilistic determinism is subtly ingrained
within our contemporary metaphysics, that is to say that the same initial conditions
may produce different outcomes, albeit a limited amount. Although we believe that
all events, be it mind or matter, have their causes, whatever conclusion Holmes
draws for a crime scene cannot possibly remain true for all future cases even when
all the starting conditions are the exact same. Therefore, his inductive
generalizations will always remain fallible.

As nonsensical and rubbish Holmes logic may be, I cannot completely

disregard his arguments either. Even though it may seem like the Copernican Theory
of Heliocentrism currently does not seem to have any sort of practical applicability, I
believe that further studies and analyses may eventually lead to innovation and
design that will greatly benefit in Holmes future investigative endeavors. Maybe one
day, technology will be advanced enough that cameras can be remotely controlled
and people can be tracked via unmanned spacecraft. But this is all just a pipe
dream.
References

HPS100 Youtube video lectures 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11