Arthur Conan Doyle is best known for his Sherlock Holmes series. Holmes, the bumbling detective that always seems to get his man based on reasoning. In this post read " A Scandal in Bohemia," click the link above.
How does Holmes use Inductive Reasoning? What errors, if any does he make? How do those errors cloud his reasoning or does it?
35 comments:
Holmes was known for posessing an extraordinary power when it comes to exploring clues and observation to explain tough questions or mystries behind matters of importace.He became more firmous as he explored his tarlent by employing method of inductive reason in his study and analysis of crime.In any case, he employed patterns while examining the posible meanings of initials on the baground of the paper used to write the letter Holmes glanced.This made it possible for Holmes to recognize that the intitials or latters represent some words in German language and above all, rest his conclusion on that premise that "the paper was not English paper at all".Also, he adopted Reasoning From and About Causes, at the point he was considering the reason why Adler may not carry the photograph about: Here he discovered that the size of the photograp and the fear of being wayliad by the king were factors that may caused her to keep it in her cabinet at her Briony Lodge.He also used Analogical Reasoning,when he stated that "Adler's marriage may mean a complete change in her life and habit".Therefore he concluded thats she should still be asleep eight o'clock.
However,he commited some reasoning errors too:he made hasty generalization by stating that "Adler did not love her husband", while inconstrast,the letter she wrote Holmes,refuted the claim by stating "I love and am loved by a better man than he". Also,Loaded Question occured,while he was examining the strange visitor on a mask, he claimed that "the Boots which extended halfway up his calves, and which were trimmed at the tops with rich brown fur,completed the impression of barbaric which opulence which was suggested by his whole appearance."While after a formal introduction,he noticed that he under-estimated his visitor. False Analogy also occured where he stated that, "If she does not love your Majesty,there is no reason why she should interfere with your Majesty's plan".
These errors clouded his reasoning while he was working on the king's case.And that explains the reason all his plans failed in the business because he had an oversight that could not allowed him to consider eventualities that might occure.Which implies that one needs to take a deep breath while reasoning,mostly in critical situations in the case of the King and Holmes.
Sherlock Holmes used inductive reasoning when he faked the injury that got him lured to Adler’s house. Upon lying down in the house, Holmes set off a false fire alarm to see Adler run to the thing most precious to her, the location of the photograph. After Adler revealed the location, Holmes thought this was the permanent safe place for the photograph.
The errors Holmes made were that Adler knew nothing of who he was. Holmes also thought the photograph would be in the same location upon his return with the King. When Holmes and the King show up the next day, the photograph is gone. However a photograph of Adler is left behind with written information on it stating she knew his game plan all along. Another error is when Holmes came home from Adler’s house and heard a familiar voice cry out from a passing carriage “Goodnight Mister Sherlock Holmes”. The familiar voice should have been a clue that maybe it could have been Adler following Holmes.
These clouded Holmes reasoning by assuming Adler knew nothing of Holmes real identity. Holmes also thought there would not be any problems. Getting the photograph would be a breeze, and he would walk out home free. Holmes misjudged Adler by assuming this would be a smooth case.
The story “A Scandal in Bohemia” was a classic Sherlock Holmes mystery story. Sherlock Holmes was introduced by expressing his excellent inductive reasoning skills which he showed when his partner Dr. Watson came over. He used gathered the facts and made observations and came to his conclusion. Holmes explained how his skills of observation differed from Watson’s with the example of the number of stairs. He had went by the stairs hundreds of times and yet was unaware of how many stairs he crossed.
In the story I will focus on the reasoning and assumptions. I believe that Sherlock Holmes showed great reasoning from the beginning. He was using patterns to determine the nature of the client, by examining the paper and its origin. He showed inductive reasoning when discovering who the client: A German, using Bohemian paper and wearing a mask. I am pretty sure he could recognize the voice as well. At this point Holmes was using his reasoning by using patterns. This was shown in his detail to his client’s description.
It is determined that this is His Majesty von Ormstein and he has a little indiscretion problem, to which, he is seeking the aid of Sherlock Holmes. It seems that there is a photograph and His Majesty has made several attempts to retrieve it without success. The problem is the woman, Irene Adler, is threatening to send the photograph to the parents of his intended.
Sherlock Holmes’ does the background on Irene Alder. He hangs out with the neighbors to retrieve precious information from the neighbors all others around regularly. He dug deep into thoughts of Ms. Alder and I believe he was swept by her beauty and figured she would be and easy catch. Here is where his faulty assumptions began. He made a hasty assumption that his abilities were superior to hers. He assumed that his simple plan of the fake fight and fire would trick her. He underestimated his opponent. I believed he needed additional information about Ms. Alder and not just her comings and goings.
His reasoning was that, “when a woman thinks that her house is on fire, her instinct is at once to rush to the thing which she values most.” This logic he had tested and proven to be correct, so he had no reason to believe he would have a problem.
Yet when he pull out the photograph it was not the correct photograph, he had been tricked.
I think he had a hasty assumption that she was a woman and a pretty woman and a simple yet tried and true test would work. He had not done the correct homework. He underestimated his opponent, which led to his failure.
I agree with Sandy if he took the time to thoroughly analyze his opponent the end result may have been a bit different. I also found the research methods that Holmes used to be interesting. He did his homework on Adler, or so he thought but still he never really figured her out. I think Sherlock Holmes' use of inductive reasoning in the end caused his downfall.
Sherlock Holmes uses Inductive Reasoning by drawing conclusions based on patterns. He knew that Watson was back in the medical field and that he had a clumsy, careless servant girl, based on simple observations most would not pay attention too. He also uses Inductive Reasoning when determines that his visitor was important.
He made errors in underestimating his opponent Irene Adler. He uses women instincts to get close to her, but he did not know that she was expecting him. Mr. Holmes’s reasoning was clouded because in the long run he did not get the photo. He should’ve got the picture when he had the chance to instead expecting it to be there at a later time.
Hi Satcher Boi
I agree with your article about Holmes underestimating Adler. Holmes should have gotten the picture when the chance was presented. However, Holmes assumed it would still be there not thinking Adler would ever be on to him. The lesson learned is never to assume the picture will always be there and strike while the iron is hot.
I agree with Sandye Curry when she said Shelock Holmes underestimated his opponent, which led to his failure. This was truly evident when Holmes didn’t pick up on Irene Adler’s voice when she passed him saying, “Good night Mr. Sherlock Holmes.” He should have noticed her voice; he had just left her house.
It’s a big challenge for me to read and find errors in this fiction. Honestly, I am not very good at reading the detective fiction. After I read it almost four times carefully, I was able to see some mistakes Holmes made by inductive reasoning. Holmes is famous for his intellectual prowess, skillful use of deductive reasoning, and astute observation to solve difficult case. As he talk to Dr. Watson that he not only see, but also observed. Sometime we solve problem depend on what we seen, and ignore something that very little but important. Because we didn’t observe, we would assume that is true by the limited information.
However, Holmes use deductive reason skillfully, there are somewhat mistakenly by inductive reasoning. Inductive reason is a process of collecting data, seeing patters and drawing conclusions based on a set of observation but do not ensure. When Holmes concludes that, “If the lady loves her husband, she does not love your Majesty. If she does not love your Majesty, there is no reason why she should interfere with your Majesty's plan.” He jumps up a conclusion without any proof that came from Adler. At the end, Adler says that she just want to keep the photo to protect herself in case something happy. I don’t so think Holmes’s conclusion is correct. Moreover, he use hasty generalization, category all the women’s reaction when they have emergency situation.
In this case, Holmes was beaten by Adler because of the inductive reasoning. I think sometime we can not just assume something is true or fact only depends on what we see and observe. Like human’s emotion and feeling, that is very hard to deduct.
Hi Sandye,Phillip,
I agree both you say Holmes had a hasty assumption. He assumes that all women base on what he knew about women. He did analyze Adler, but he is affected by his unconscious assumption. Sandye says that “He underestimated his opponent.” Indeed, he just assume that Adler just a pretty woman with simple mind. That’s a reason cause he was beaten by Adler in this case.
I agree with what Satcher Boi was saying about how the biggest error made was Sherlock Holmes underestimating his opponent. He should have gotten the picture when he had the opportunity. He didn't think his opponent, Adler, was even trying to get it, which was wrong on his part.
After reading "A scandal in bohemia", I immediately noticed the simplicity of what Sherlock’s reasoning was all about. His explanation about looking vs. observing to Watson is what kind of summed up his analysis process to me. He was quick to observe and collect data, and the conclusions based on this data are what separate snap judgments from true examination. One fault that I noticed was that maybe Sherlock was a little quick to “dive right in” and engulf himself into sorting out every piece of data. I think this could cloud his reasoning because there seems to be an excitement that comes along with the processing of data with him. Anytime someone is excited, that’s when errors can occur. I think that’s the only thing that can potentially cloud Sherlock’s judgments.
Magnus, I agree with what you were saying about “taking a deep breath”, when it comes to Sherlock’s enthusiasm towards a case. There always seems to be an excitement about analyzing something, when it comes to Sherlock, and I think this could be something would cloud someone’s judgment. This is especially true when dealing with cases of this magnitude, careful steps need to be made in order to ensure the proper analysis of the situation. I think coming at such a situation with excitement and enthusiasm would not be such a good approach.
Sherlock Holmes uses Inductive Reasoning in many ways. The first that comes to mind is when he observed Irene Adler. In this case, he bonded with the caretakers of the horses by assisting them with maintenance of the horses to gather information on Ms. Adler. The ostlers were the pseudo scientists who observed the subject almost everyday.
The information regarding Mr. Norton opened another door. More questions were raised to determine the relationship between Mr. Norton and Ms. Adler. Once he found they were married, it changed his approach to the situation.
The next inductive reasoning used was the inferences of patterns. In this case, he wanted to start a diversion by simulating a fire knowing through previous cases that women will reach for what’s most important to them. He mentioned this pattern was successful in a couple of his previous cases: Darlington substitution scandal and Arnsworth Castle business.
Sherlock Holmes' error was that he didn’t take into account Ms. Adler’s profession and was a bit blinded by the fact that she was a beautiful woman. Since she is an actress by trade and he too posses this talent, he under estimated her; he made a hasty generalization that she didn’t know anything about him and the possibility the King might acquire his services.
Another hasty generalization he made was because he was a dressed as a clergyman no one would be suspicious of him.
After thinking he had solved the case (knowing where Irene had keep the photograph), his mind was clouded with his next steps to close the case. Upon fumbling for his keys, he was unable to determine the person who said "Good Night, Mister Sherlock Holmes" and didn't give it much thought afterwards.
Hi Ting.
I found your post interesting. I like how you mentioned deductive reasoning versus inductive reasoning. I too found myself struggling a bit with detective fiction. Believe me, it took me a long time to read it.
I agree with you that Sherlock Holmes made a hasty generalization on which he based his conclusion.
Mr. Holmes is one of my favorite detectives because he always solved the case by a critical thinking method called “inductive reasoning.” In “A Scandal in Bohemia” Holmes uses inductive reasoning as evidence, when Holmes and Watson had both used their investigation techniques but came up with different conclusions about the number of stairs.
Holmes makes a few mistakes but its okay he is still the best mystery solver. The error tat Holmes make is that came home from Adler’s house and heard a familiar voice cry out from a passing carriage “Goodnight Mister Sherlock Holmes”. The voice that he heard should been a sign leading him to suspect that it was Alder following him.
Holmes errors cloud his reasoning because he made hasty decision not getting the picture when he had the chance he assumed that he would have another chance to get it at a later time which was wrong.
Hey Shawn!I agree with you and it was interesting how Holmes uses inductive reasoning and I like the example that you used. See you in clas and I hope that advice I gave you on your paper was helpful.
In the story, "A Scandal in Bohemia," Sherlock Holmes does use Inductive Reasoning several times.
Inductive Reasoning is very evident in the beginning when Sherlock Holmes is with Dr. Watson. He arrives at his conclusion based on his observations, as well as the facts he found. He also saw that both him and Dr. Watson had different ways of coming to conclusions because of their different styles of observation.
Another example of Inductive Reasoning was when Sherlock Holmes was trying to find the identity of the client. He "carefully examined the writing, and the paper upon which it was written," to see if he could find clues to the person's identity. He came to the conclusion that "the paper was made in Bohemia" and that "the man who wrote the note was German." He used patterns to figure this out based on what he was familiar with.
One big error that Sherlock Holmes made was the fact that he underestimated Ms. Adler's profession. He looked passed everything she did because all he could think about was the fact that she was a beautiful woman. He was blinded by her beauty and he didn't think anything of her. He was using ways to get close to her, but he didn't realize that she was doing the same.
He ended up falling for the trick and getting the wrong picture because he allowed Ms. Adler to get it. He should have gotten it before she got the chance, rather than trying to play a game. He would have ended up with the right picture if he didn't underestimate what Ms. Adler was capable of doing.
hey alex i agree with you because i also think that sherlock reasoning was all abouthis explantion about looking vs observation. and did make good points
hey alex i agree with you because i also think that sherlock reasoning was all abouthis explantion about looking vs observation. and did make good points
I sit here with a smile after reading,"A Scandal in Bohemia." I love the artistry of the piece as much as the mystery.
Holmes uses "inductive reasoning" with a great deal of creative license. It seems to me he comes by his data with an eye of fantasy and intrigue. Indeed, he has intelligence and common sense to guide his actions as well.
In the piece, I found that Holmes regards women with loose generalizations. When he says, "Women are naturally secretive, and they like to do their own secreting." He might be better served in his efforts if he were to look at himself regarding the accuracy of that statement. He is very secretive and a bit of a chameleon under the employ of his clients.
I enjoyed the visual imagery woven throughoutthe text. I thought the descriptive manner in which Doyle writes was engaging and imaginative. It seemed Holmes would stop at nothing to gather what he deemed necessary to work a case.
As we learn in the text, Holmes is hired by the King of Bohemia to secure a piece of incriminating evidence for him. Immediately, Holmes sets out to devise his plan of action, involvin Dr. Watson as his assistant.
From the start,Holmes makes assumptions about women, particularly Irene Adler. He says: "A married women grabs at her baby; an unmarried one reaches for her jewel box. Now it was clear to me that our lady of to-day had nothing in the house more precious to her than what we are in quest of." This is in reference to his plan with Dr. Watson to obtain a photograph from Adler's home.
In my opinion, I don't think Holmes is tactful at gathering and observing data. He uses his imagination and bravado to set the tone and corner his subject, as it were. He positions himself near Adler's residence at the moment when a ruckus breaks out in the street. Now he has created a scenario to manipulate the outcome advantageously. He is taken into her house and now the stage is set.
Watson is stationed outside. He throws the rocket into the window and yells, "Fire!" And with all the scurry and smoke stirring, Holmes has the idea that he will gain all he needs to concerning the whereabouts of the infamous photograph.
Alas, in the end, Holmes is the one tricked. Adler outsmarts him as she knew all along what his intentions were. In his pondering about the nature of women, he might have done well to consider the the cliche' about women's intuition.
I love that he would be fooled by his own game. I love that she got away and left nothing to the imagination in doing so. She stated her claim in the letter poignantly.
The way I see it, Holmes makes errors all the way through regarding his ability to reason. I think his assumptions about women clouded his sense of inductive and deductive reasoning. Clearly, he did not get it right in this caper because Adler escaped, leaving him and the King in the dust. She left behind the evidence of self dignity, and the prized photograph in tow.
I believe the only rules that applied to Holmes game in this text were his own. The gains certainly did not come to fruition the way he had hoped.
This is the first time I have read a story about Holmes. I just might have to plot out my time carefully, and read another Holmes mystery some time.
After reading “Beautiful People “by Conniff; I got to say that was very good reading. I agree with Conniff; when he said”, that people get there jobs from the way they look. I also like the way he use the president primes Candidates as example on how we make hasty generalization base on someone appearance “Mr. Romney stands a better chance in the G.O.P presidential primaries because he has the look of mature leader, with that high forehead towering over deep-set eyes and a strong (O.K., perfect) chin. And John Edwards may be at a disadvantage among Democrats because those cubby check cheeks make him look just a little too winsome. Never mind looking at their credential to see if they are qualifying for the job.
An interview is another example how your appearance matter. You know that you couldn’t go with sweat pants and shirt aspect that you are going to get hirer .You must dress in a suit with no wrinkle and your shoes must be band new. Your face have to be clean and have as little blemish as possible .You got seen like you come from money : Even before the interviewer will look at your résumé. This sad, but true in how are society is base.
I think ours society is derange because instead of putting a qualify person in a job position .The interviewer pick who look the good ,in their buiness suit. That why, catastrophe happen every day; an example is President Clinton a lot of women and men ,thought he was a handsome person. That they fall to look at what he was doing while he was in office. Clinton put a time limit on welfare which hurt a lot of people because it they couldn’t put their live together in a matter of five year. Than they and their family were label unreachable; than they are put off welfare and let to do what whatever is necessarily to survive.
Sherlock Holmes seems to be pretty accurate with his inductive reasoning yet this reasoning can lead to errors. While Holmes was right with a lot of his reasoning it's dangerous to use said reasoning. There is a reason why in court jury's are told not to convict if there is reasonable doubt or when cases are built on speculative evidence, a loose form of inductive reasoning.
Sherlock Holmes rarely suffers from being wrong, for he is a fictional character, however he does still manage to make mistakes. His first was assuming that his opponent was a man, as he described when speaking of the paper and "he" was someone who wrote in German. As many have already stated, his ultimate error was assuming this woman was just a 'typical' (we're talking about the 1800's and sexism, not my beliefs) where in fact she was anything but.
Hey Alex,
Your post resonates with me. I agree that Holmes is perhaps too quick in his assessment to make sound reasoning.
I wonder if it was his ego that guided or clouded his perceptions and actions? Something definitely got in the way of his being able to do the justice to the case he thought he would.
I found him to bumble and fumble. I also found him to be too hasty in his approach to be effective.
I agree with you, he was too quick to just "dive right in." Obviously, he missed some crucial clues along the way.
So much for Holmes and a (not so) well-rounded go at "inductive reasoning."
Thanks,
Lisa
Alestri said: "In my opinion, I don't think Holmes is tactful at gathering and observing data. He uses his imagination and bravado... "
Alestri, I agree with you 100%. When reading one thinks "is this guy serious?" I caught myself sitting there several times wondering how Sherlock Holmes was a good detective, as he tends to just grab things out of the air, or makes hasty conclusions based on things i don't find too logical. Yet, somehow, he's usually right. Then i remembered that it's fiction and the author is allowed to do whatever he wants, for if Holmes was real his career would have been short lived.
Sherlock Holmes is inductive reasoning; it's what his character is made of. In the beginning he simplifies his great abilities by explaining to Dr. Watson how he concludes what he does. As Watson states it seems so simple, but yet Holmes' tactics aren't realized until he later points out what he observes and why. I liked that Holmes simply states to Watson, "You have not observed. And yet you have seen." Great Point!
However, Holmes reasoning was clearly clouded when he hastily generalized all women. He completely underestimated Irene Alder. Although, Holmes was correct in that she attempted to grab what was most precious to her in the threat of fire, he didn't realize that by creating this scenario he exposed himself. As he, she had her own inductive reasoning. By figuring out who he was she was able to trick him, unlike he had been tricked before.
In addition to that error in judgment; Holmes was also incorrect in his belief that if she loved her husband truly, Alder had no need for the photograph. I the end we know she did in fact love her husband but needed the photo for her won protection.
Hi Philip and Sandye.Both of you really made apoints.Holmes underestimated Adler,I think that's spill-over effect in reasoning error.Dispite that,he was a great guy.And another important detail ,is that, his reliance on inductive reason wasn't the cuase of his his failure while handling King's business. But his problem was that he took things forgranted ,maybe he forgot that it does back-fire sometimes.
Holmes seems to use Inductive Reasoning in his everyday life. It's like no matter what, from greeting his friend to solving a mystery, he is mentally taking in any clue that is available, interpreting what it relates to and drawing a conclusion.
Although I believe Holmes was a good dective, I have always believe that he always made hasty decisions. I also believe that first thoughts are often the best choice but sometimes they aren't because we need more information.
Sandye,
I also agree with you about Holmes underestimating Ms. Alder. He should have taken the picture when he had the chance because in life when you lag, you lose.
"A Scandal in Bohemia" was a very interesting read because there were quite a few examples inductive reasoning.
In Chapter 1, inductive reasoning is defined as "going through a process of collecting data, seeing patterns, and drawing conclusions."(29)
One very good example of inductive reasoning was when Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are solving the mystery presented to them about the number of stairs. They both use different methods of observations to help them arrive at their conclusions, which are different. Sherlock Holmes uses his observations, as well as facts that he gathered to come to his conclusion, which was different from how Dr. Watson arrived at his.
Sherlock Holmes did have errors that did cloud his reasoning. Rather than seeing Ms. Adler as an intelligent woman who was very smart, he underestimated what she was capable of doing, which caused him to lose in the end. She got away with her talent because Sherlock Holmes just saw her as a beautiful woman. As he was playing the game to try and figure her out, he didn't realize that she was doing the same. In the end, she got the picture and he lost.
Class-
It's funny that out of 15 pages of Holmes inductive reasoning, almost all of us used the same examples.
Lyric, I must agree that Holmes' judgment was clouded by Alder's beauty. In respect to the other blog regarding looks, does anyone think if she hadn't been so beautiful he would have made the same error in judgment?
This is another interesting story. What I see in this story is that Inductive reasoning is very important and sometime it really changes your life. I really like the way Holmes observes everything. Small things like how many steps are there in a stair. To be honest, if you ask me how many steps in one of the stair here in Laney College, I don’t even have a crud.
Holmes use inductive reasoning for everything. For the letter, he see that the material is not made by English and he also see the pattern of the sentences that is not correspond to a standard English and it really has some German style. Then he use that to draw his conclusion.
Hi Sandye and Rosemary:
It is true that Homes make a warranted assumption that “when a woman thinks that her hose is on fire, her instinct is at once to rush to the thing which she values most.” But what I see here is that he is not using inductive reasoning. Instead, it seems to me that it is deductive reasoning. He think that was a theory and everyone would do it. Therefore, he is a little bit hasty generalized.
Class, I apologize for not responding to your posts. I made my posting earlier and there was only 1 posting and the church I attend ends quite late and I had to sacrifice my response time. Please forgive me.
I agree Rosemary, Holmes was overcome with the beauty of Ms. Ader and clouded his judgement. He was also feeling quite confident about himself and was not open to see if perhaps there were signs that may have shown problems with Ms. Alder.
Ms. Wanzo, I understand that I will not receive credit for this post, but out of respect to my collegues, I wanted to say something.
Sherlock Holmes uses inductive reasoning to solve the case. It is a way to find new information or to add missing information that is needed. His errors cloud his reasoning beacuse he makes assumptions before having sufficient information to make the next move. We have learned that we should follow are gut feelings, however, it only works when you have previous evidence to do so. Otherwise, it does not work and then it is a problem where people begin to make false accussations. Trusting our instincts is something that we practice over a period of time. It is very important to gather as much information as we can before making a false cause or hasty generalization.
Sherlock Holmes uses inductive reasoning to solve the case. It is a way to find new information or to add missing information that is needed. His errors cloud his reasoning beacuse he makes assumptions before having sufficient information to make the next move. We have learned that we should follow are gut feelings, however, it only works when you have previous evidence to do so. Otherwise, it does not work and then it is a problem where people begin to make false accussations. Trusting our instincts is something that we practice over a period of time. It is very important to gather as much information as we can before making a false cause or hasty generalization.
Hi Sandye! I agree that sherlock Holmes would have not failed if he had only took more time to observe his opponent. That way he would have had enough information to have the coprrect photograph.
We as humans at times believe that we know it all. That can in fact cloud our thoughts and make mistakes. We need to be more aware of the decisions that we are making so we do not make the same mistake twice.
Post a Comment