I have to say I really enjoyed the first three episodes of the BBC’s Sherlock series starring Benedict Cumberbatch. From a social research perspective we are told that Sherlock uses ‘deduction’ , although it seems that the great detective creates his theory of ‘who dunnit’ from evidence so isn’t this inductive reasoning? If we dig a little deeper it seems more probable that he does a bit of both. He speculates and accumulates. He uses abduction, or what Charles Sanders Pierce called ‘guessing’ based on likely correlations of the facts, but saying that Sherlock was a great ‘abducter’ probably wouldn’t go down well for a character who is meant to be on the side of the Law!
The tv series seems to have captured the Zeitgeist by tapping into a detective approach that moves away from the scientific rationalism that dominates C.S.I, Waking The Dead and the like by appealing to the creative pattern spotters in all of us. Is it stretching it too far to say that is echoes the difference between Plato and Aristotle? The Platonic appeal or Sherlock versus the Aristotelian appeal of Horatio Caine and his colleagues. If Sherlock was in Marketing he’d certainly be a rule breaker than a rule taker, he’d kick back against fromulae, he get frustrated with prescription. As for the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle he seems to have had interesting take on Marketing and maybe this seeps into his characterisation of Sherlock Holmes.
A client is to me a mere unit, a factor in a problem.
Arthur Conan Doyle