“Its somewhat ambitious title was ‘The Book of Life,’ and it attempted to show how much an observant man might learn by an accurate and systematic examination of all that came in his way. It struck me as being a remarkable mixture of shrewdness and of absurdity. The reasoning was close and intense, but the deductions appeared to me to be far fetched and exaggerated. The writer claimed by a momentary expression, a twitch of a muscle or a glance of an eye, to fathom a man’s inmost thoughts. Deceit, according to him, was an impossibility in the case of one trained to observation and analysis. His conclusions were as infallible as so many propositions of Euclid. So startling would his results appear to the uninitiated that until they learned the processes by which he had arrived at them they might well consider him as a necromancer.‘From a drop of water,’ said the writer, ‘a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it. Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it. Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the inquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems. Let him, on meeting a fellow-mortal, learn at a glance to distinguish the history of the man, and the trade or profession to which he belongs. Puerile as such an exercise may seem, it sharpens the faculties of observation, and teaches one where to look and what to look for. By a man’s finger-nails, by his coat-sleeve, by his boots, by his trouser-knees, by the callosities of his forefinger and thumb, by his expression, by his shirt-cuffs–by each of these things a man’s calling is plainly revealed. That all united should fail to enlighten the competent inquirer in any case is almost inconceivable.’”
This is the method of observation and deduction made famous by the London detective Sherlock Holmes. His name is probably as familiar as even Biblical names. His fame has been spread abroad by the writings of A. Conan Doyle. Though the man Sherlock Holmes is apparently fiction the principles of observation and deduction are not. It is said that A. Conan Doyle made the man Sherlock Holmes from the inspiration of a Doctor that he knew who could perform Sherlock Holmes’ methods of observation and deduction in the medical world. The fact that observation and deduction are real and not fiction should be obvious. Now the extent to which the tools given to us by God can be used to fight crime or solve medical mysteries depends on the abilities of the man to adapt these methods to the modern world.
It is my belief that the incredible powers which Sherlock Holmes used to fight the criminal element in the late 1800’s England can be adapted and used today for the same or different purposes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dr. Joseph Bell, Arthur Conan Doyle's mentor, once looked at a patient and said...
"'Well, my man, you've served in the army.'
'Aye, sir.'
'Not long discharged?'
'No, sir.'
'A Highland regiment?'
'Aye, sir.'
'A non-com officer?'
'Aye, sir.'
'Stationed at Barbados?'
'Aye, sir.'"
Bell then explained to his befuddled students how he had come to those conclusions, observing that "the man was a respectful man but did not remove his hat. They do not in the army, but he would have learned civilian ways had he been long discharged. He has an air of authority and he is obviously Scottish. As to Barbados, his complaint is elephantiasis, which is West Indian and not British, and the Scottish residents are at present in that particular island."
That was from a note in my Annotated Sherlock Holmes. I just think it's a good example of what you are saying, Eli.
Post a Comment