"Impossible" vs. "Improbable"

[Carol the Dabbler]

Mr. Cumberbatch, in every role I've seen him in (admittedly not nearly enough) does this thing when his characters are thinking where his eyes move.  ...  In this scene, he isn't doing that.  He is just listening, but he comes to life when she says, "Jim Moriarty sends his love." ... That's when the head comes up and the eyes start moving....

 

Thank you -- I hadn't noticed that.  I'm looking at Ariane DeVere's transcript to get the exact sequence of events:

 

IRENE: He’s good, isn’t he? I should have him on a leash – in fact, I might.

(She gazes at Sherlock intensely but he remains turned away from her and can’t see her expression.)

 

Then Mycroft concedes.  Still no reaction from Sherlock.  Then:

 

IRENE: Oh, Jim Moriarty sends his love.

(Sherlock raises his head.)

 

So I was wrong, it wasn't the insult that got Sherlock's attention, it was, as you say, Moriarty's name.

 

But I'm still wondering -- was that the clue that he needed -- or was that the incentive that he needed?  Mycroft is beaten and the British coffers depleted -- boring.  Jim Moriarty is involved -- hmm, interesting!

[Julia Mae]

 

Which gets us back to my original question -- how does Sherlock determine whether something is truly impossible or merely highly improbable?  In fact, can anyone actually do that?  I still contend that we often label something as "impossible" merely because we lack the knowledge and/or the imagination to see how it could happen.

------------------------

Well, you've expressed my personal philosophy perfectly!  However, we know of impossibilities (barring Divine intervention) like puppies cannot be born from chicken eggs no matter how long you have your dog sit on one! 

 

But statistically, it's very hard to get a zero % probability. So then we have to go to logic. (A blog page I keep meaning to write in deductive, inductive and other sorts of reasoning.)  So, logically:

 

If I was sitting in a movie holding hands with Fred for two hours and someone swears they saw Fred shoot some store clerk across town during that time, I know it's impossible for Fred to have done the shooting.  (This actually could be expressed mathematically, all you need is symbols to represent the factors and assign probabilities to them - but that would be, well,  silly.) 

 

Sherlock says he knows that what he saw in Dewar's Hollow was impossible, he didn't see it, yet he did.  Later in the episode he says there were seven possible explanations, the most probable being that he was drugged.  I don't think he's speaking mathematically, but logically.  He believes seeing something that actually existed that was in the form he saw is impossible.

 

You are right of course, I agree with you that very few things can be said to be impossible.  Reminds me of the Oprah question: what do you know for sure?

 

[Julia Mae]

 

Thank you -- I hadn't noticed that.  I'm looking at Ariane DeVere's transcript to get the exact sequence of events:

 

Carol, don't you have Netflix online?  It's free the first month and $8 after that.  You can watch all the episodes over and over  - and over.  Stop, snip, go back.....  90 minute full episodes.   And of course, all the rest of the stuff they have.  I got rid of my cable ages ago - American TV got to be even more tedious than offensive, as far as I'm concerned.  But Netfix has a bunch of great shows and movies.

 

I think you are asking the right question about incentive or clue - and the easy answer is both, I suppose,  but I'm going with clue.  I think Mycroft's pain, and Sherlock's pain at having to sit there knowing he caused it, is all the incentive he could possibly need. 

 

 

Here's the blog entry on this scene:  Journey to Reichenbach: Reconciliation

 

I also thought how Mr. Cumberbatch played the bit where he puts in the S-H-E-R was one of the best  expressions of suppressed rage I've ever seen  -  she's lucky he didn't throw her out the window.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I also thought how Mr. Cumberbatch played the bit where he puts in the S-H-E-R was one of the best  expressions of suppressed rage I've ever seen  -  she's lucky he didn't throw her out the window.

 

Which makes this modern version of Sherlock so fun to watch and heads above so many other versions out there. Self proclaimed sociopath but so deep and so layered. Truly complex.

[Julia Mae]

Which makes this modern version of Sherlock so fun to watch and heads above so many other versions out there. Self proclaimed sociopath but so deep and so layered. Truly complex.

-------------------

 

Yes, very much so.  This show is such a great example of synergy, so many elements that spring from so many people of superior skill.  The graphics and photography, the music....  the concept - I have a huge "writer's crush" on Mark Gatiss.  Imagine, though, imagine being a writer and being able to write anything because you have an actor whose range is virtually unlimited?  Subtle or broad, humor or tragedy, eloquent without dialogue.  And then surrounding that one actor with all these other very talented people?

 

Must be a writer/producer's heaven.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Imagine ... being a writer and being able to write anything because you have an actor whose range is virtually unlimited?  ...  And then surrounding that one actor with all these other very talented people?

 

While I don't disagree with a word you say, it does seem to me that Sherlock relies very heavily on the talents of two actors and the characters they portray.  Some of us feel more "rapport" with one or the other, but they're both essential to the chemistry of the show.

 

That's why I'm always pleased to see news items that refer to "Sherlock, starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman."

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Carol, don't you have Netflix online?  It's free the first month and $8 after that.  You can watch all the episodes over and over  - and over.  Stop, snip, go back.....  90 minute full episodes.   And of course, all the rest of the stuff they have.  I got rid of my cable ages ago

 

I just wish that cable was available here, because then we'd be able to get good high-speed internet service.  We're currently on 56K dial-up (which actually runs about 40K).  As an experiment, I just downloaded a 70-second video from YouTube.  At 41.2 Kbps (we're really screamin' tonight!), it took about 11 minutes (with nothing else going on).  So nope, not much hope for streaming video there.

 

We're currently looking into 1500K DSL, but the neighbors complain it's typically more like 500K, so it might just barely keep up with YouTube.

 

Don't think we're going to be selling our DVD player any time soon!

 

[Julia Mae]

I just wish that cable was available here, because then we'd be able to get good high-speed internet service.  We're currently on 56K dial-up (which actually runs about 40K).  As an experiment, I just downloaded a 70-second video from YouTube.  At 41.2 Kbps (we're really screamin' tonight!), it took about 11 minutes (with nothing else going on).  So nope, not much hope for streaming video there.

 

We're currently looking into 1500K DSL, but the neighbors complain it's typically more like 500K, so it might just barely keep up with YouTube.

 

Don't think we're going to be selling our DVD player any time soon!

Wow.  Indiana?  I mean, it's not like you're in North Dakota or something.  Must be farm country.   Well, you can buy a LOT of DVD's for what you'd pay for cable every month. 

 

And no commercials! 

[Julia Mae]

While I don't disagree with a word you say, it does seem to me that Sherlock relies very heavily on the talents of two actors and the characters they portray.  Some of us feel more "rapport" with one or the other, but they're both essential to the chemistry of the show.

 

That's why I'm always pleased to see news items that refer to "Sherlock, starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman."

 

Here's my favorite Watson snip from the Janus Cars puzzle.  Sherlock isn't the only one with cheekbones:

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

As much as I am glad when Benedict gets accolades for things.....and Martin as well.....I feel very happy when "Sherlock" wins awards. I think of the cast as an ensemble and they all do deserve recognition for their talent and hard work as well. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Wow.  Indiana?  I mean, it's not like you're in North Dakota or something.  Must be farm country.

 

Yup. Even though we're technically in a metropolitan area, we're way out in the corner of a county, more or less equidistant from several county seats. Everyone else in our subdivision has satellite TV service, but we figure that'd just give us a hundred more channels that we don't have time to watch. (And satellite internet service is notoriously unreliable.)

[J.P.]

This show is such a great example of synergy, so many elements that spring from so many people of superior skill.  The graphics and photography, the music....  the concept - I have a huge "writer's crush" on Mark Gatiss.  Imagine, though, imagine being a writer and being able to write anything because you have an actor whose range is virtually unlimited?  Subtle or broad, humor or tragedy, eloquent without dialogue.  And then surrounding that one actor with all these other very talented people?

 

Must be a writer/producer's heaven.

 

AMEN!

 

 

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

 

 

 

It's Sherlocks take on Ockham's razor and it always makes me smile.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree that seems to be what Conan Doyle was aiming at.  None of his versions is actually a restatement of Occam's Razor, though -- that would be more like "When you have eliminated the explanations that do not account for all the observed facts, then the simplest one remaining is most likely to be the truth."  (Maybe Conan Doyle didn't consider that zippy enough for fiction!)  Actually, Sherlock came pretty close to that in "Blind Banker":
 

DIMMOCK: We’re obviously looking at a suicide.
JOHN: That does seem the only explanation of all the facts.
SHERLOCK: Wrong. It’s one possible explanation of some of the facts. You’ve got a solution that you like, but you’re choosing to ignore anything you see that doesn’t comply with it.
DIMMOCK: Like?
[sherlock proceeds to tell him in great detail.]
SHERLOCK: Conclusion: someone broke in here and murdered him. Only explanation of all the facts.

[joanneta1]

Whatever is physically impossible through the laws of physics and mathematics can be eliminated, from anthropology to zoology, including his favourite subject, chemistry. It is physically impossible to be at two places at the exact same moment in time, which makes Schroedinger's cat conundrum such fun for scientists, and the second conditional sentence :If I were you... impossible as well.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Whatever is physically impossible through the laws of physics and mathematics can be eliminated, from anthropology to zoology, including his favourite subject, chemistry. It is physically impossible to be at two places at the exact same moment in time, which makes Schroedinger's cat conundrum such fun for scientists, and the second conditional sentence :If I were you... impossible as well.

 

The trouble with that is that scientific fact is merely humanity's collective best guess at the moment -- so it keep changing.  When I was a kid, "continental drift" was a crackpot theory -- now "plate tectonics" (which includes the idea of continental drift) is widely accepted as fact.

 

And while I am willing to concede that it's impossible for anything to be in two places at once (which is why an alibi is usually considered proof of innocence), it is nevertheless possible for something to appear to be in two places at once -- taking us right back to the problem that some things merely seem impossible, because we don't yet have all the facts.

[joanneta1]

Dear Carol,

         s e e m yes, b e no! That is the main difference, unless you start deconstructing both logic and existentialism, not forgetting Descartes, I think, therefore I am, and the famous anecdote between Aristotle and Diogenes: Aristotle defined a human as a biped without feathers (wings), so a little later Diogenes presented him with a plucked chicken, forcing him to change the definition to a biped without feathers, logical, that is able to reason. Perhaps that's where the eponymous club in Sherlock gets its name from, not Diogenes Laertius, the gossipy biographer, but Diogenes the Cynic, the loner.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yes, but how can one be certain that one can reliably tell the difference between something that actually is true and something that merely seems to be so?  Philosophy and mathematics are a good foundation for logical thinking, but when one is dealing with the real world (rather than with an abstract construct), I believe they have their limits, being more reliable for statistical calculations than for determining the truth about any specific case.

 

[Ruthyone]

I think Sherlock is an individual (like his brother Mycroft) and he's has the ability, partly inherited, partly learnt, to be able to look at things differently.

He doesn't have the usual social skills but can see what other people don't see.

 

:sherlock2:       

[Carol the Dabbler]

No argument there, and he presumably knows what he means by "impossible" versus "highly improbable."  But I would still appreciate it if Sherlock would actually define his terms -- it sounds to me like there's a judgement call involved, in which case I fail to see how it could possibly be as precise and scientific as he implies.  Which may be what John is hinting at in the fireside scene in "Hounds":

 

SHERLOCK: Once you’ve ruled out the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be true.
JOHN: What does that mean?

 

Unfortunately, Sherlock gives him no direct answer.

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

No argument there, and he presumably knows what he means by "impossible" versus "highly improbable."  But I would still appreciate it if Sherlock would actually define his terms -- it sounds to me like there's a judgement call involved, in which case I fail to see how it could possibly be as precise and scientific as he implies.  Which may be what John is hinting at in the fireside scene in "Hounds":

 

SHERLOCK: Once you’ve ruled out the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be true.

JOHN: What does that mean?

 

Unfortunately, Sherlock gives him no direct answer.

 

It doesn't help that Sherlock was in a practical melt down trying to fend of a panic attack from the gases in the moor he didn't know he was sprayed with.

[Carol the Dabbler]

True!

 

 

Dear Carol,

         s e e m yes, b e no! That is the main difference, unless you start deconstructing both logic and existentialism, not forgetting Descartes, I think, therefore I am, and the famous anecdote between Aristotle and Diogenes: Aristotle defined a human as a biped without feathers (wings), so a little later Diogenes presented him with a plucked chicken, forcing him to change the definition to a biped without feathers, logical, that is able to reason. Perhaps that's where the eponymous club in Sherlock gets its name from, not Diogenes Laertius, the gossipy biographer, but Diogenes the Cynic, the loner.

 

Upon rereading your post today, joanneta, I think I may have misread it before.  In fact, your Aristotle / Diogenes anecdote is a good example of the "impossible" (a non-human featherless biped) being proven not so impossible after all (though Diogenes may have been having a little joke there).  And I think you're right, the Club is presumably named after the Cynic, considering how cynical the members appear to be.

 

[Boton]

I'm a little late to the party on this discussion, so all of the really intelligent points have been made. (Whew!)   :D But my two cents is that I've always read all of the impossible/improbable quotes to be very context-dependent.  So, it's impossible that Professor Plum committed the murder, not because he's physically unable to do so, but because he's got an alibi we trust.

 

I don't think the definitions are nearly as scientific as either Sherlock or Holmes imply.  I think that's probably true for lots of things, especially with Sherlock.  He seems to just present himself and his ideas very confidently, and most people will go along with it.  That's one of the great things about John; he calls Sherlock on his BS.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... Sherlock ... seems to just present himself and his ideas very confidently, and most people will go along with it.  That's one of the great things about John; he calls Sherlock on his BS.

Come to think of it, Mary does that too, which I like and Sherlock doesn't seem to mind.

 

When I was in high school, a friend pointed out that one can get away with doing nearly anything as long as one wears a look of confidence. I've put that maxim to good use many times!

 

[Ruthyone]

I think his confidence, when all the others are running around like headless chickens, to find answers (because others can't) is the key. People will follow him because at least he has a theory (usually correct) and whether or not they like it, they follow. 

 

:sherlock2:     

[Arcadia]

 

... Sherlock ... seems to just present himself and his ideas very confidently, and most people will go along with it.  That's one of the great things about John; he calls Sherlock on his BS.

Come to think of it, Mary does that too, which I like and Sherlock doesn't seem to mind.

 

 

I think narcissistic types often respect, even enjoy, people who are able to call them out. They get a kick out of it, for some reason.

 

When I was in high school, a friend pointed out that one can get away with doing nearly anything as long as one wears a look of confidence. I've put that maxim to good use many times!

You must have had the same friend in high school that I did. We discovered all we had to do was act like we belonged somewhere and no one questioned it. I didn't hurt, I suppose, that we were otherwise model students..... :P  I wonder if that's still true, tho. Depends on the school, maybe.