this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
1015 points (99.6% liked)

People Twitter

8336 readers
3015 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

deduction

it's abduction he uses, not deduction.

He doesn't start with a set of potential conclusions and knock them down one by one as he gathers evidence - no, he instead jumps from one extreme thread of intrigue to another, never quite abandoning an idea even if the evidence points otherwise. The universe then apparently conspires to prove him right on credence alone

[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

So you're telling me that he's actually a reality warper instead of a genius doctor?

[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

reality warper

You could say, like the Wabbajack.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 2 points 14 hours ago

I actually think so, yeah

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it's abduction he uses, not deduction.

This is correct

He doesn't start with a set of potential conclusions and knock them down one by one as he gathers evidence - no, he instead jumps from one extreme thread of intrigue to another, never quite abandoning an idea even if the evidence points otherwise. The universe then apparently conspires to prove him right on credence alone

Less so

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Less so

No? the information he gathers is very sparse, so naturally his conclusions are very wild and based more on hunches than on anything actually empirical

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

based more on hunches than on anything actually empirical

That's what abductive logic is.

Clearly he's not being arbitrary. While it isn't purely deduction where the conclusion has to be true if the premises are true, in abductive reasoning it's only "likely" they're true. The better your premises, the better the likelyhood.

And how good are Sherlock and House portrayed as, in this way?

Very.

That's why he's allowed to do almost anything, since he usually ends up finding the right solution despite a little trial and error.

If he constantly turned out to be wrong, he wouldn't have an entire department and there'd be very little point in the whole story

Abduction is basically deduction when you account for reality.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I hear what you're saying, but you assume his reality is rational. I think he's a reality warping demon whose guesses are proven to be right only because the universe he lives in loves him.

In a saner world, he would be locked up as a delusional hateful man who got people killed with constant risky misdiagnosis