Miss Marple and the helicopter

Yesterday a police helicopter was flying in the city. It wasn't actually flying a lot. It was more hovering in one position for a long time. Still at work I looked on the internet to find information, but didn't find any on the spot, not even on the pages of the police. In the evening I searched again with a bit different words than previously and eventually found information. Whether it was because of the different words or because of time passing, I am not sure. The helicopter wasn't searching for a person of any kind, like a co-worker and I had suspected, but had done overview shots.

The next day I told the co-worker that I had searched for information again in the evening and found some, too. She then called me "Miss Marple".

WWSHS

Dear reader,

when I was in school there was a time when students used many abbreviations. Widely known were HDL (Hab dich lieb – Love you) and HDGDL (Hab dich ganz doll lieb – Love you very much). I don't know how up to date those abbreviations are today. It has been many years since I've seen them used. Now chat abbreviations are more common.

The comprehensive school I went to was a christian one with more or less believing students. One of my class mates had a bracelet bearing the letters WWJD. One of our teachers explained to us eventually that it wasn't half of an internet address or a sort of “broken” one, but the abbreviation for: What would Jesus do?

A while ago I was in the garden and got dandelions and grass for the guinea pigs. It wasn't the first time that I cut myself with the grass. A couple of weeks ago I also cut myself twice with the knifes my father has when I didn't watch out enough cleaning them. Because of that my hands show several marks more or less healed for several weeks now. Thinking about Easter I also made my first ever marmelade (or jam as some of you may call it): daisies-dandelion and the second time only dandelions, but twice the amount. The dandelion flowers have to be pulled for that. The juice of the peduncle is rather bitter and therefore has to be pulled. You want exactly the bitter taste for the dandelion tea, which is supposed to be very healthy. Because of all the cutting and pulling my hands for a while looked rather yellow and brown, even after washing them.

I wonder what Sherlock Holmes would see? The hands of a person would be important to him and insightful. A person for whom well-groomed appearance is important would at least not use their bare hands to work in the dirt or do the gardening without gloves. Depending on their job, women probably would have longer fingernails and maybe have beautifully varnished nails. Someone playing for example the violin or guitar needs rather short fingernails and certain fingers would have calluses from the strings. Kids usually are not that careful eating something. The hands show that quite well. And if a child secretly ate something sweet and forgot to wash their hands after that... The hands of a person are very revealing. If we care to look.

It should be WWSHO – What would Sherlock Holmes observe (or deduce?) not see. Because as he told his friend Dr. John Watson and others so many times: he doesn't see, he observes. Indeed he would not just notice my cut and dirty hands, but deduce that I have been outside having something to do with earth. What else would he specifically be able to tell and correctly deduce?

Until next blog,
sarah

Stairway to observation: it's elementary

Dear reader,

Tuesday, a couple of weeks ago. I'm visiting a friend of mine at work. As I make my way up from the underground, I step on the first step of the escalator. It's broken. I have to walk up. Darn.

Wednesday that same week. I'm again visiting that friend of mine at work. As I make my way up from the underground, I step on the first step of the escalator. It's still broken. I have to walk up again. Stupid!

 Thursday that same week. I'm again visiting that friend of mine at work. I am finally remembering that maybe the escalator is still broken. I peek around the corner to check if the lights are green. They're red. I walk on it to take the stairs. I finally learned.

Months ago I spend many days watching both the series "Sherlock" and "Elementary". As Sherlock likes to say, "You see, but you don't observe." The first step to see and observe and deduce the way Sherlock Holmes does is to actively engage in seeing things.

 Last week on Thursday. I'm visiting that friend of mine at work. I peek around the corner to check the lights of the escalators. They're red. It's broken again. I wonder what all the old people at my friend's work are doing. The escalators are broken a lot of times at that underground station. As I walk alone to the stairs, I'm thinking about Sherlock Holmes, too. Thank you, Sherlock.

Until next blog,
sarah

Abductive, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

Dear reader,

I can't help myself but making this blog entry today a scientific one.

Before I start I want you to know three things

1) I wasn't very scientific in my last post. I forgot to mention the names of the series I mentioned. The BBC production is called "Sherlock". The american series goes under the title of "Elementary".

2) It may surprise some of you that although Holmes was so analytical and scientific, his creator was quite unscientific and gullible. Doyle believed very much in the existence of fairies. It's also difficult to believe that Harry Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle have been friends for a while. Because their point of view on spiritism was so contrary however, that friendship didn't last long.

3) The producers of "Sherlock" really took great care in creating that show. Sherlock has his own homepage The Science of Deduction. You can also read Dr. John Watson's Blog, which includes comments by Holmes and others!!! Other characters of the series also have their websites: Molly Hooper's blog and the forum of Connie Prince. The last two however may only be of interest to people, who know the series and the persons.

In a way even Sherlock Holmes' homepage is only for people who know the series or fans. Also the title of the page is sort of wrong. Sherlock Holmes is not using deduction in his investigations. This is a mistake not only from the series, but also wrong in Doyle's books. On imdb.com you can find a note on that mistake.

To be honest, each reasoning: abductive, deductive and inductive - are tricky and separating each of them from the others is not quite easy. The differences are very small.

The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are relatively simple to explain.

In deductive reasoning you set up a general rule. From that rule you set up another rule, of which you can be certain, too. If or rather because both are true, the conclusion will be certain at the end. This kind of reasoning can be found in mathematics, for example in equations with variables:

if x = 2

and if y = 3,

then 2 x + y = 7

Maths is often very much just theory. So let's put it another way:

If chaos is increased in a system, unless you feed it with energy,

and if my flat is a system,

then I should feed my flat with energy and keep it tidy and clean, unless I want to drown in a chaotic mess.

With inductive reasoning you take one single thing and take it to be true. From that you make a general rule that applies to other similar things. A conclusion is likely, but not certain. There is this thought experiment about a white swan. If we see many white swans, we can conclude that there exist white swans. It would be wrong however to conclude that all swans are white, or that there only exist white swans. In science, which is about gathering information, you can find this way of thinking.

Abductive reasoning is about observing something and looking for a possible explanation that would make the observed probable as an outcome. The theorist Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of abductive reasoning, explained it this way:

"The surprising fact, C, is observed. But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true."

Finding a conclusion is taking your best shot and not very satisfying. The conclusion you come up with may or may not be true. In medicine you find this way of thinking. The patient tells about his symptoms and the doctor has to think of an illness that would lead to those symptoms, to treat the patient accordingly. Also in court you'll find abductive reasoning: does the prosecution or the defense the better arguments that fit and explain the given situation?

So indeed Holmes doesn't use deduction, but abduction. He cannot be certain to see all the facts of a crime scene that lead to the crime. So Holmes' conclusion are likely to be incomplete and with that nothing more than taking your best shot.

Arthur Conan Doyle used Dr. Joseph Bell as a model for Holmes, as I mentioned already in my last post. Another doctor was very good in observing and making conclusions: Dr. Milton Erickson. Sidney Rosen describes a story in his book "My Voice Will Go with You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson", which is a good example to show how good Erickson was in observing and making conclusions. The story is called "The Right Psychiatrist":

A young, beautiful woman came to Erickson. She was very desperate. She wasn't pleased with either of the psychiatrist she had seen so far. So she was uncertain about Erickson and whether he was able to help her. He wrote down some things about the young woman and then said to her that he was the right psychiatrist. He could prove it by asking a question. But the woman won't like that question. The woman wanted to hear the question anyway. So Erickson asked her, "How long have you been wearing women's cloths?" Erickson had seen the woman pick a lint off her sleeve in a straight, direct move, without a "detour" around the breasts, like a woman would.

There's also a video with Tim Minchin, where he talks about the human logic, which addresses another aspect of logic.

Until next blog,

sarah