Summary: Introduction Personally, I like a mixture of a wee bit of philosophy and physics and astronomy and other sciences that describe how the world works but also in conjunction with highly situation-specific information and knowledge unrelated to the general existence of the planet and universe (possibly related to coaching). While I find that equilibrium agreeable, Sherlock Holmes would have nothing of the former in his repertoire of knowledge. If something wouldn't help him with sleuthing puzzles as a consulting detective, he wouldn't have it in his 'brain attic'. Although he may have looked like a philosopher at times, Sherlock would never have been a philosopher because Sherlock deliberately made himself horribly naive and uninformed about certain areas of knowledge irrelevant to his line of work. Holmes' reveries and meditative reflection in solving a case could be misconstrued as the type of world 'how everything works' pondering that a philosopher may do, but he was a machine for solving detective puzzles. Watson pointed out that Sherlock Holmes thought for hours, days even, about a case, but this is not like a philosopher who thinks about trees falling in forests with no one around, or a fusion of a variety of diverse knowledge, or how the world works. So while Sherlock thought very deeply it was always about very specific scenarios related to his current case. That focus on highly nuanced (and to an outside, odd) knowledge was one of the three key ingredients (the others you will shortly see are Observation and Deduction) that made Sherlock one of the (if not The) foremost experts in areas of knowledge that were incredibly nuanced, but crucial to his work as a consulting detective. Observation Sherlock Holmes a)knew what to look for and b)observed with incredibly detail and scrutiny. Both knowing what to look for (see the Knowledge component of the triumvirate below) and being able to keenly spot crucial details was 1/3 of the invaluable triad of components that made Sherlock perform what seemed to some like magic. But it was far from magic, it was a lot of work learning his specific type of knowledge, scientifically observing, and then reasonably deducing. There was a methodical process to Sherlock's work; it may have looked like a 'poof and abracadabra' but it was definitely the exquisite mixture and fusion of these three ingredients. Knowledge Holmes is interested in minutiae: -tobacco - Upon the Distinction between the Ashes of the Various Tobaccoes -hands (affected by vocation) - "upon the influence of a trade upon the form of the hand, with lithotypes of the hands of slaters, sailors, corkcutters, compositors, weavers, and diamond-polishers." -footsteps - upon the tracing of footsteps, with some remarks upon the uses of plaster of Paris as a preserver of impresses. - Paraphrased from Chapter 1 of Sign of Fou Deduction Deduction is clutch. It is what fuses and ties together the Observed minutiae Knowledge. Without Deduction, good ol' Sherlock would just have at best a jumble of, well, observed minutiae knowledge! Conclusion You can apply the observation of very specific knowledge and then deducing things to many things outside of Sherlock's focus of criminal cases. When working on a coaching problem I like to try to combine a similar triple combo of observation, deduction, and specific knowledge. That combo can be applied to sciencres, progress, staying focused, it can be used for a numerous different types of puzzles in numerous cateogories. One particularly relevant 'category' might be medicine or surgery (Sherlock Holmes was partially based off a Scottish surgeon) where the doctor has to observe very obscure knowledge in ways that others don't even know about and instead of a deduction, make a diagnosis. Whatever the category the triple Knowledge-Observation-Deduction(or Diagnosis) is superb. Jolly good! Podcast #145.
