Due to the laws of probability, this means that a detailed scan should be extremely likely to err on a few details, but this almost never happens in fiction. In general, deductive arguments produce only trivial truths in a field like detective work, so induction is all you can use.
This is often cited as a demonstration of deductive reasoning (reaching a conclusion that is true by definition based on its premises) but is actually an example of inductive or abductive reasoning (reaching a conclusion that has some probability of being true based on its premises). This is often not connected directly to the main plotline, but just to show "This is how the detective's mind works, and yes, the detective is That Good." The obvious subversion is to play this out, then have the detective admit that they were told the fact, or else for the other person to insist the detective is utterly wrong. The other character looks skeptical or surprised, then the detective describes their reasoning from a set of minor clues (state and style of clothes, marks on skin, tan, etc.) and consequent assumptions. The detective mentions some fact about the person they've just met, something that is not immediately obvious and they have no way of knowing ("Quitting cigarettes appears to have been good for you", "How's the wedding planning going?", "You've holidayed in Italy recently"). The Trope Namer, Sherlock Holmes, A Study in ScarletĪ device used to introduce a detective character and their skills.
0 kommentar(er)
