How do I learn the "science of deduction" like Sherlock

>>7739240
Get a degree in memeology.

>>7739242
Me:I have that. Ph.Deez nuts

Barber:come over

Me:why you always lying?

It's called logic which is part of philosophy.

>>7739240
Pick up a book on critical thinking

>>7739240

Formal logic, rhetoric, Latin, Greek, philosophy, and mathematics - especially Analysis & proofs. Just as a baseline.

If you want to go full Sherlock, you'll want to do chemistry, forensics, anatomy, French, German, linguistics, and pathology as well. Some of these can be self-taught but for forensic pathology/autopsy you'll probably need to get into an actual lab to do the dissections. Don't rob any graves.

You don't. What Sherlock Holmes does is not something you can do in real life. He's a superhero with magic powers much like superman, it just looks somewhat more realistic than superman. But in the end, it's just as impossible in real life.

>>7739240
He's a fictional character wielding fictional powers.

>>7739373
I never understood grave robbing. Even with embalming, corpses that were 2 weeks old back then were disgusting as fuck.

>>7739240
I understand your desire, its what I've been striving to become for the past 5 years. However you must first admit that you will NEVER be like him as his observation skills and powers are not possible for humans, however you can strive to be.
What he does is induction and then calls it deduction since he always gets it right. Taking the most possible scenario.

The most important part is to be observant of everything. To constantly look at things and people, how they dress, what items they have, their mannerisms how they smell. You'd be surprised what kind of things you can induce from inducting these observations.

Then you need the skillset to put 2 and 2 together.
If X and Y then (possibly) Z
Remember this isn't always correct, but better to be confident and believe in it than to pussyfoot and say you can never know for sure.

The rest just comes from how much knowledge you possess from random topics like chem, bio, physics and medicine.

Hope that helps.

>>7739399
>I never understood grave robbing
Well during the day doing autopsies on anyone but hanged men was illegal. What this meant is that there wasn't enough corpses to go around, which often meant that the universities of the day would pay handsomely for bodies, no questions asked. So if you couple that with the fact that industrial era Britain was a pretty horrible place to live especially if you were poor, then grave robbing becomes a fairly attractive prospect.

However Burke and Hare agreed with you, week old bodies are nasty and who wants to get caught by the graveyard patrols? So they just murdered people instead.

>>7739240
There is no "science" behind it.

It's mechanical thinking by shitty writers and only retards think it's anything like real insight, it doesn't work in the real world to say "A implies B" when A also implies a billion other things, only it happens to be B because that's how the writer planned the episode.

It's like playing amateur chess where you assume that your opponent is only going to move what you think he is in a particular sequence based on your own move instead of considering all his moves.

>>7739824
It's people like you never make it.
>why even consider the likely possibilities, for all we know it might have been aliens.
Taking probatio diabolica to the extremes.
Yes Conan Doyle overexagerates this thinking by making him always right, but the principle is solid even if Sherlock made mistaken assumptions, he would have corrected them and moved on to the next most likely possibility

>>7739845
No you fucking retard. I'm saying you should consider all the probabilities instead of just choosing the one you like most which is what Sherlock does especially in the shitty modern variations.

>Sherlock made mistaken assumptions, he would have corrected them and moved on to the next most likely possibility
He doesn't even make GOOD assumptions, not even in Doyle's books. He chooses the least likely of scenarios because that makes him looks more clever when he is right.

>>7739850
I'm talking about his methods, not himself. Yes he made crazy assumptions, but the methods are still valid when talking about reality, its just that you're going to be wrong a lot of the time. But your observations will still stand

>>7739852
>the methods are still valid
They are absolutely not.

You fell for a simple pen trick. Congrats on being a retard and pretentious pseudo intellectual twat.

>>7739853
Make observation
Make hypothesis on observation
Test hypothesis
If false back to step two

Hmmm where have I seen this method before

>>7739856
>Comparing mechanical thinking the to the scientific method

Just...wow.

Here's what the "method" in the books actually is
>Make observation.
>Make hypothesis.
>Make another hypothesis based on unproven hypothesis.
>Repeat N times.
>Draw conclusion from unfounded speculation.
>Mechanically determined story proves your main character right.
>Alternative use Deus ex Machina device to prove him right.
>Sell books.
>A century later fanboys annoy /sci/entists on a Manchurian dog connoisseur forum.

File: 23432432432423.png (82KB, 228x200px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 228x200px

>>7739862
>>7739853
>>7739850

>>7739862
Well not quite
He doesn't make hypothesis based on hypothesis unless you're talking about the movies or tv series then I don't know.

What he does do is take multiple clues and make them in a hypothesis which he then acts upon which is always right. But like I said the fact that he's always right doesn't matter. It's his method which is what I just described that works

>>7739240
>fictional character
Sherlock Holmes was based on a real person, a professor at the university where the author was a student.

What you need is a huge foundation of facts. Then you need an inquisitive mind with an ability to find patterns and an associative way of thinking. I am not sure how much of thic can be taught. You might want to try a PhD.

>>7739240
understand the concept of logic, apply it, when all impossible outcomes are realized, the truth, no matter how seemingly improbable, will be evident

>>7739984
And that's why Elementary has the better Sherlock Holmes.

>>7739984
>/tv/ being buttmad because they have inferior intelligence
Poor idiots.

>>7739984
this is the post I was thinking about. absolutely perfect.

>>7740412
you're a living meme, the idiot pretending to be smart that they're talking about.

I haven't seen this but I'm going to assume this is a lot like Hannibal, where they turn autism into a super power.

As someone lazy as fuck it kills me already thinking about walking around with high perception and connecting everything to a giant flow of fundamental information, getting to some good conclusions in a short amount of time. I know it's all automatic if you train it but thinking of it now is such a hassle.

>>7739240

it is not deduction, he uses inductive reasoning that is 100% correct thanks to plot magic.

>>7739853
Meet Joseph Bell, the guy who Sherlock Holmes was based on:

>Bell once remarked to an astonished outpatient: “I know you are a beadle and ring the bells on Sundays at a church in Northumberland somewhere near the Tweed.” “I’m all that,” said the man, “but how do you know? I never told you.” The outpatient left, bewildered. Bell turned to his students: “Did you notice the Northumbrian burr in his speech, too soft for the south of Northumberland? One only finds it near the Tweed. And then his hands. Did you not notice the callosities on them caused by the ropes? Also, this is Saturday, and when I asked him if he could not come back on Monday, he said he must be getting home tonight. Then I knew he had to ring the bells tomorrow. Quite easy, gentleman, if you will only observe and put two and two together.”

>>7740653

Seriously, I don't have time to look at peoples hands...

But if you shake hands then its apparent.

No offence /sci/

...I'm not a doctor

>>7740445
But if I'm a living meme, the who was phone? Jack rabbit, check mates!

>>7740541
so much this lol

WHERE are his monographs on cigar ash etc. Where can I find things like those . please help :(

>>7741702
Here:

lemonparty.org

>>7739240
This is some pretty dedicated shit
http://aguidetodeduction.tumblr.com/archive/2011/9

>>7739796
How could you be confidence about something that you're not at least 95% sure about?
What will confidence give you other than concentration or determination?
I know the obvious answer; these two are extremely important qualities in a successful person, but I still want to ask.

>>7741792
>lemonparty.org
didnt know it was still up nice
>>7741836
thats pretty good! more please!

File: tumblr_lrzt8rziaF1r38d7do1_500.png (392KB, 500x425px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 500x425px

>>7741846
>http://aguidetodeduction.tumblr.com/archive/2011/9
nvm some of it is sjw tumblr bullshit. monographs pls:<

>>7741836
How can you act upon something that you're not sure about? That's why you either test your observations or you pat yourself on the back for making a scenario that is likely to be true and move on to the next observation. This trains your observation skills and let's you see the world from an inductive viewpoint. If this then possibly that or that other thing.

If you have no confidence in your observations then there is no point. You'll always go either
>it's a shame I can't test my hypothesis so I don't know if I'm right
Instead of
>it's possible that I'm right and x is y because z

Or

>what's the point, I'll never know the full truth anyway

Don't do that

>>7740449
>turn autism into a super power
Isn't it already? The advantages are absolute and intrinsic while the disadvantages are almost entirely situational, i.e. born out of having to deal with this diseased neurotypical world.

>>7741891
>this is what aspies actually believe
T. A fellow sperg

>>7739387
>solves crime using logic
>fictional powers

File: 55jlhps1_nam6b7.jpg (386KB, 2996x1400px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 2996x1400px

>>7741900
>runs using his body
>super powers

>>7741897
>implying it isn't true

>>7741901
>misinterprets my comment
>shitposts

>>7741869
Why shouldn't I do that?
Is it just that okay to be confident in a risk that may or may not pay off? Wouldn't you be better off just dealing with facts and following safe routes?
Your observational skills will surely improve with time but no matter how good you are "...there's always something".

Not to say it's impossible to make highly accurate deductions.
To do so, you have to spend time with someone and learn about their character and baselines which is no different from following facts and staying in the safe side.

>tl;dr
Induction's pros do not outweigh the cons and one should just stick to what they know or can learn as a fact. Inductions are a fancy form of wishful thinking.


>>7741849
Eat the fruit, throw the seed
Repeat

>>7741921
All the "logic" appearing in any Sherlock media is inside a script that is fictionally written by a human.
Sherlock has superpowers because the writer wants Sherlock to be right because that's how the plot needs to progress.

>>7742058
>responds to internet comment
>full autism

File: Someone-fated-from-their-mouth.jpg (50KB, 500x479px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x479px

>>7742061

>does anything at all
>its autistic

>>7742058
If no one took educated guesses, never acted up said educated guesses and only worked with knowledge that is 99% likely to be true then humans would still be living in caves.
>I have this hypothesis but I'm afraid that it might be wrong, so I won't act upon it because it might not work out.
I used to think like this, but over time I realized that making quick mistakes and learning from them was better than always taking the safest route.

Obviously this is subjective, but I believe this is the best road to progress.

xd

>>7742058
>Wouldn't you be better off just dealing with facts and following safe routes?

Uh, of course not. Everything you do requires inductive reasoning. Literally everything.

>>7742058
>Eat the fruit, throw the seed
ok i guess.

any other resources guys? with more material in it?

pls respond.

>>7742089
Nigga there are literally almost 5 years worth of content, that isn't enough for you?

>>7742080
Elaborate please

>>7739240
Get the book "Read em and reap"

It is about Poker, but it is written by a former FBI agent who stresses being super observant and drawing conclusions based off of little things you observe. He gives real world exercises at the beginning of the book.

He's based on a professor at Oxford I think, so there's some truth to it being that perceptive

>>7739240
Proofs involve deduction.

>>7739294
Or discrete math. Which is more of a science.

>>7739240
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deduction_theorem

>>7739383
this. Seeing the world through sherlocks eyes would be the most ridiculous experience, it would be enough detail to make even the most hardcore autist cry.