Jump to content
algebraist

logics inconsistency in Sherlock,

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

Merry Christmas . I am a fan of Sherlock series obviously, but I must say I have been puzzled by inconsistency in Sherlock deducing process . I would say they are

of two  types :

1)  very slow hypotheses switching . My example is the moment where S.H. get puzzled by the fact the lost luggage in " a study in pink" is in the neighbourhood. I get the fact that the taxi slow appearance in the game is somehow theatrical, but it bothered me in the sense that S.H looks quite not as smart and quick as expected at this moment.

2) inconsistent hypothesis . My example is the suggestion by S.H. in "The Hounds of Baskerville" that the poison could have been spilled into the cup of coffee. I do no see how Henri could have been drugged in this manner before .

Have you other examples ( I have other , but I probably need to rewatch to remind ) , or are you disagreeing with my recriminations ?

Caroline

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Caroline -- Merry Christmas and congratulations on such an interesting first post!  :xmas:

I think you have a very good point, and one that I'd never really noticed before:  Sherlock has a bad habit of getting stuck on a particular hypothesis, and will do his best to stick with it even if evidence starts pointing in a different direction.  His focus on the pearl and his patronizing view of Vivian as just a silly old lady are basically what got Mary killed in Six Thatchers.  And earlier, his patronizing view of Mary as just John's sweet little wife was what got him shot in His Last Vow.  He's quite capable of deriving a hypothesis from clues very quickly (as he shows in the fireside scene in Hounds), but only in the absence of other hypotheses.  Well, every genius has a flaw, I guess, and that's Sherlock's!

In all fairness, though, he had figured out that the killer was a cabbie much earlier in the 60-minute pilot episode (which was never aired).  It was when they expanded the same plot to 90 minutes that he suddenly went stupid -- and apparently stayed that way!

As for why Sherlock thought Henry could have been poisoned by his coffee, he was assuming that the poison was in the canister of sugar in Henry's kitchen -- and thus every time he stirred sugar into his coffee, he was poisoning himself.  That leaves open the question of how the poison got into the sugar, but that would have required the poisoner to have access to the kitchen only once, or every once in a while (depending on how fast Henry goes through a batch of sugar).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for welcoming me :)

Yes I agree with the " Sherlock has a bad habit of getting stuck on a particular hypothesis, and will do his best to stick with it even if evidence starts pointing in a different direction."

I must say it sort of disappointed me , in the sense that it is the proper of highly intelligent people in every field  ( like science for example )to contemplate a priori all kinds of hypotheses , including the exotic ones , compared to more mundane minds which are proner to dwelve into one theory . And then maybe correct it when facing other elements . I guess that it is more related to a storytelling constraints than failing to grasp Sherlock personality , since the whole hypotheses disply is very well used when Sherlock locally uses his talents to uncover a person 's personality or intentions, because he can explains it very succintly to the world by the bias of interaction with Watson for example .

I did not know there was a shorter version of " A study in pink " , that makes sense now, but to me it looked it should have been introduced in a less obvious plot twist than " a taxi is here " and "the luggage is here " .  I agree also with your explanation of the poison plot, but that hypothesis raises a lot of questions about its realizability , and it is kind of weird that S.H. seems to be very quick to raise these kind of questions in psychology mining stuff and questioning police investigation techniques but less adamant to do it when faced with a real plot movement.
I have to rewatch to find other elements, and good, it is holidays :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, Caroline! A new member to play with, yay!

I think even highly intelligent people get stuck on a certain way of thinking; it's just human nature. And I suspect that the real problem here is that the writers are not as smart as the character they are writing! (They've said so themselves.) But I also think they are trying to show that Sherlock is not as superhuman as he would like to be, or believes himself to be. I think the story is more about Sherlock learning to accept his own limitations than it is about how smart he can be. Everyone makes mistakes, but it's how we deal with them that's important.

Or something like that.  It sounds a bit preachy! :D 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, algebraist said:

... it is the proper of highly intelligent people in every field  ( like science for example )to contemplate a priori all kinds of hypotheses , including the exotic ones , compared to more mundane minds which are proner to dwelve into one theory.

 

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I think even highly intelligent people get stuck on a certain way of thinking; it's just human nature.

Oh, certainly!  I've heard it said that scientific advances don't generally take place till the old establishment dies off.  Scientists are, after all, just as human as the rest of us.  Like Sherlock, they may be open to all sorts of possibilities -- but only until they've settled on one, after which they're just as stubborn as Sherlock (who is also said to be human).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

If all of the evidence points to one conclusion...

If repeated experimentation produces the same results.

That's not being stubborn, that's a solution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If all of the evidence points to one conclusion...

If repeated experimentation produces the same results.

That's not being stubborn, that's a solution.

 

How do you do repeated experimentation for murder-solving , or just figuring out real-life events ? Just wondering . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, algebraist said:

How do you do repeated experimentation for murder-solving , or just figuring out real-life events ? Just wondering . 

Yeah, that's the problem as I see it.  Laboratory experiments can be repeated exactly, but with real-life stuff, you often get only the one chance.  Of course you can do population studies, and see whether Method A or Method B tends to give the best results, but that applies only to the mythical average person.  It doesn't necessarily prove which method would work best for you or me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree

And also to a certain extent, that sort of explains why he has some poor social skills . If you try to understand one single person by deduction and statistics , and most importantly try to explain to them why they are doing this or that ( even when they tell something else ), in general you are going to be not very welcomed .

I am not as smart but I tend to overanalyse , and some of my friends just hated that I was trying to explain details to them about things that happened .  Also making deductions in person like Sherlock ( even to a lesser extent ) can make you like a psycho sometimes lol 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.