Heuristic programming was the first area in which AI methods were tested. The favourite case-studies were fairly simple toyproblems, such as cryptarithmetic, games, such as checker or chess, and formal problems, such as logic or geometry theorem-proving. These problems are well-defined, roughly speaking, at least in comparison to real-life problems, and as such have played the role of Drosophila in early AI. In this chapter I will investigate the origins of heuristic programming and the shift to more knowledge-based and real-life (...) problem solving. (shrink)

Although prima facie no more than a successful private detective, Sherlock Holmes is a classic exponent of scientific method and has laid down several fundamental rules of scientific discovery and truth?detection. While he rediscovered and modified well?known principles of induction, analysis and synthesis, and decision theory, he also made significant contributions to patterns of explanation, and with his ?principle of exclusion? was an ingenious innovator. This latter cornerstone of Holmes's methodology led him to an interesting modal theory of the (...) ?improbable possible? as a competitor to the famous doctrine of the ?impossible probable? put forward by Aristotle in de Arte Poetica. Holmes's scientific discipline was seasoned by warmth, understanding, and boldness. (shrink)

800x600 Normal 0 21 false false false RO X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabel Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} Review of Joseph Steiff (ed.), Sherlock Holmes and Philosophy. The Footprints of a Gigantic Mind (Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 2011), 376 pages.

In the appendix to Naming and Necessity, Kripke espouses the view that necessarily, Sherlock Holmes is not a person. To date, no compelling argument has been extracted from Kripke’s remarks. I give an argument for Kripke’s conclusion that is not only interpretively plausible but also philosophically compelling. I then defend the argument against salient objections.

An important ingredient in understanding such sentences is resolving the question of: level in/of what? protection from what? what sort of documents? danger from what? Each of these is an example coming from novels, television commercials, and news reports. In the first instance, it is from a commercial for a brand of computers. In the commercial, which is pushing the most recent version of that computer, the voice-over announces (1a) just as a teenager exults after having apparently accomplished something worthy (...) of jubilation in a computer game. The message is intentionally interpretable in multiple ways: You are taken to a new level in the game, you are taken to a new level in computing power/speed, and, being a commercial, one also reads that it takes you to a new level in life. The second example is a story caption in a local newspaper. The article is about the shortage of flu shot vaccine in the U.S., and the people are going to Canada for flu shots, seeking protection from contracting the flu. The third example, also from a newspaper report2, requires not just that the FBI agent sold some documents or other, but rather that they were sensitive confidential documents, likely purloined from the FBI itself. The final instance is from a novel. In the novel the protagonist, in seeking to solve a crime, has overlooked something which in retrospect appears terribly obvious. The character’s self-deprecation thus reads: Sherlock Holmes’ reputation as a master sleuth was in no danger of being diminished. Each example, in context, reads seamlessly and poses little challenge to attentive or even inattentive readers and listeners. (shrink)

Emphasizing the philosophical debates raised by generations of devoted fans, this intriguing volume will be of interest to philosophers and Holmes enthusiasts alike.

Fictional names have specific, cognitively relevant features, putting them in a category apart from the category of ordinary names. I argue that we should focus on the name or name form itself and refrain from looking for an assignment procedure and an assigned referent. I also argue that we should reject the idea that sentences containing fictional names express singular propositions. These suggestions have important consequences for the intuition that ‘Sherlock Holmes exists’ is either true or false, and they (...) put our intuitions concerning fictional names into perspective. If Millianism is the view that names only have a referent only as their semantic value, then my proposal on fictional names is not Millian in nature. (shrink)

Trabalho apresentado no XVII Simpósio de Filosofia Moderna e Contemporânea da UNIOESTE, em 2012. Título original: Sherlock Holmes in der Kulturwissenschaft – eine Spurensuche mit Ernst Bloch. Original em alemão também publicado nessa edição da Revista Dialectus.

In this paper, (1) I argue that Sherlock Holmes was a good logician according to the standard of his day, and (2) I try to show what his method of reasoning was. Now, (2) is a harder task than (1), because we have to identify the essential features of his method of reasoning. In order to show this, I have not only to examine what Holmes says he is doing, but also to look at the methods of scientific reasoning (...) recommended by several distinguished philosophers of science in the 19th century. I want to examine Holmes's method of reasoning in a historical setting; and this has something to do with the philosophy of science in the 19th century, and hopefully with the philosophy of science today. I will examine whether such methods are similar or dissimilar to Holmes's method. Logicians and philosophers I wish to examine are, John Herschel, John Stuart Mill, William Whewell, Augustus de Morgan, and William Stanley Jevons; however, since the space is limited, I cannot do justice to all of them. My conclusion is this: Sherlock Holmes was distinctly different from Herschel or Mill or Whewell who may be called a classical methodologist; but he was very close to de Morgan or Jevons who were an advocate of the new symbolic logic and the probabilistic theory of induction. But what is the point of showing all this? The rise and development of statistical method in the19th century had a great impact on the theories of scientific reasoning, and de Morgan's or Jevons's theory is a newer theory of induction in this century. And such a change of methodology is clearly reflected in the popular stories of Sherlock Holmes, which were written in the late 19th century and early 20th century. (shrink)

Before the establishment in the early 1800s of France's Sûreté Nationale and England's Scotland Yard, the detection of crimes was generally regarded as supernatural work, but the rise of modern science allowed mere mortals to systematize and categorize events—and thus to solve crimes. Reducing the amount of crime, however, did not reduce the fear of crime, which actually grew in the late-nineteenth century as the result of globalization and media sensationalism. Literary detectives offered an imaginary cure for an imaginary disease. (...) Sherlock Holmes, the most famous literary detective, retained many of the characteristics that earlier ages had attributed to superhuman “detectives”; a wondrous and a social being, he nonetheless was able to reassure an anxious public that even the most heinous crimes could be solved. His ability to calm the fears of the globalizing Victorian era was an early version of what later became a proliferation of imaginary characters serving similar public functions. (shrink)

Before the establishment in the early 1800s of France's Sûreté Nationale and England's Scotland Yard, the detection of crimes was generally regarded as supernatural work, but the rise of modern science allowed mere mortals to systematize and categorize events—and thus to solve crimes. Reducing the amount of crime, however, did not reduce the fear of crime, which actually grew in the late-nineteenth century as the result of globalization and media sensationalism. Literary detectives offered an imaginary cure for an imaginary disease. (...) Sherlock Holmes, the most famous literary detective, retained many of the characteristics that earlier ages had attributed to superhuman “detectives”; a wondrous and a social being, he nonetheless was able to reassure an anxious public that even the most heinous crimes could be solved. His ability to calm the fears of the globalizing Victorian era was an early version of what later became a proliferation of imaginary characters serving similar public functions. (shrink)

An important ingredient in understanding such sentences is resolving the question of: level in/of what? protection from what? what sort of documents? danger from what? Each of these is an example coming from novels, television commercials, and news reports. In the first instance, it is from a commercial for a brand of computers. In the commercial, which is pushing the most recent version of that computer, the voice-over announces (1a) just as a teenager exults after having apparently accomplished something worthy (...) of jubilation in a computer game. The message is intentionally interpretable in multiple ways: You are taken to a new level in the game, you are taken to a new level in computing power/speed, and, being a commercial, one also reads that it takes you to a new level in life. The second example is a story caption in a local newspaper. The article is about the shortage of flu shot vaccine in the U.S., and the people are going to Canada for flu shots, seeking protection from contracting the flu. The third example, also from a newspaper report2, requires not just that the FBI agent sold some documents or other, but rather that they were sensitive confidential documents, likely purloined from the FBI itself. The final instance is from a novel. In the novel the protagonist, in seeking to solve a crime, has overlooked something which in retrospect appears terribly obvious. The character’s self-deprecation thus reads: Sherlock Holmes’ reputation as a master sleuth was in no danger of being diminished. Each example, in context, reads seamlessly and poses little challenge to attentive or even inattentive readers and listeners. (shrink)

Recently, a number of authors have suggested that we understand scientific models in the same way as fictional characters, like Sherlock Holmes. The biggest challenge for this approach concerns the ontology of fictional characters. I consider two responses to this challenge, given by Roman Frigg, Ronald Giere and Peter Godfrey-Smith, and argue that neither is successful. I then suggest an alternative approach. While parallels with fiction are useful, I argue that models of real systems are more aptly compared to (...) works that portray real people, like the Emperor Claudius. This approach will allow us to avoid problems with fictional characters. (shrink)

In this paper, I will show that Sherlock Holmes was a good logician, according to the standard of the 19th century, both in his character and knowledge (sections 2 and 3). Holmes, in all probability, knew William Stanley Jevons’ clarification of deductive reasoning in terms of “logical alphabets” (section 4). And in view of his use of “analytic-synthetic” distinction and “analytic reasoning,” I will argue that Holmes knew rather well philosophy too, as far as logic and methodology are concerned (...) (section 5). Further, I have argued that Holmes introduced new twists (presumably, following Jevons) into analytic reasoning: application to reasoning as regards causal sequences, and probabilistic elimination of hypotheses (sections 6 and 7). Also, in this context, I will clarify the significance of Holmes’ metaphor of the “little attic”: without fine assortment in your brain, it is hard to devise promising hypotheses (section 8). Finally, presenting a simple model of probabilistic inference, which became prevalent in the 19th century (section 9), I claim that the essence of Holmes’ reasoning consists of probabilistic inferences, “balance probabilities and choose the most likely,” which is nothing but probabilistic elimination of hypotheses in the light of evidence. I also argue that my claim fits in well with the text of Holmes stories (section 10). (shrink)

In Naming and Necessity Kripke argued against the possible existence of fictional characters. I show that his argument is invalid, analyze the confusion it involves, and explain why the view that fictional characters could not have existed is implausible.

This paper examines critically the reconstruction of the ‘Sherlock Holmes sense of deduction’ proposed jointly by M.B. Hintikka and J. Hintikka in the 1980s, and its successor, the interrogative model of inquiry developed by J. Hintikka and his collaborators in the 1990s. The Hintikkas’ model explicitly used game theory in order to formalize a naturalistic approach to inquiry, but the imi abandoned both the game-theoretic formalism, and the naturalistic approach. It is argued that the latter better supports the claim (...) that the imi provides a ‘logic of discovery’, and safeguards its empirical adequacy. Technical changes necessary to this interpretation are presented, and examples are discussed, both formal and informal, that are better analyzed when these changes are in place. The informal examples are borrowed from Conan Doyle’s The Case of Silver Blaze, a favorite of M.B. and J. Hintikka. (shrink)

This paper examines whether Sherlock Holmes’ “Science of Deduction and Analysis,” as reconstructed by Hintikka and Hintikka The sign of three: Peirce, Dupin, Holmes, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1983), exemplifies a logic of discovery. While the Hintikkas claimed it does, their approach remained largely programmatic, and ultimately unsuccessful. Their reconstruction must thus be expanded, in particular to account for the role of memory in inquiry. Pending this expansion, the Hintikkas’ claim is vindicated. However, a tension between the naturalistic aspirations (...) of their model and the formal apparatus they built it on is identified. The paper concludes on suggestions for easing this tension without losing the normative component of the Hintikkas’ epistemological model. (shrink)

The nub of Sherlock Holmes's investigative process has been overlooked in the analytical literature on the subject—until now. This study drills down into the character's methodology to explicate what is at its very heart. I present Holmes as a rational empiricist operating at the explicit level of observation and inference but also as an intuitive empathizer operating at a tacit level of awareness involving imaginative guesswork. I claim that the operational story of the former, where identifying essential clues to (...) resolving a case involves intuitively sensing relevance, necessarily relies on that of the latter. (shrink)

In an addendum to Naming and Necessity, Saul Kripke argues against his earlier view that Sherlock Holmes is a possible person. In this paper, I suggest a nonstandard interpretation of the addendum. A key feature of this non-standard interpretation is that it attempts to make sense of why Kripke would be rejecting the view that Sherlock Holmes is a possible person without asserting that it is not the case that Sherlock Holmes is a possible person.

There is a common (although not universal) claim among historians and philosophers that Copernican theory predicted the phases of Venus. This claim ignores a prominant feature of the writings of, among others, Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler-the possibility that Venus might be self illuminating or translucent. I propose that such over-simplifications of the history of science emerges from "psychological predictivism", the tendency to infer from "E is good evidence for H" to "H predicts E." If this explanation is correct, then in (...) cases where evidence is less blatant the history of science (and philosophies of science that rely on it) has probably been seriously distorted in a predictivist direction. (shrink)

Most philosophers would say that fictional characters lack spatiotemporal location simply because such entities do not exist. However, even prominent believers in ficta hold that they must lack location. I here focus on the views of one such believer, Amie Thomasson, and her Artifactual Theory. The fundamentals of her ontology seem correct, but I argue that the view implies that ficta do have location. I provide a diagnosis of an argument Thomasson gives for the contrary, and then suggest a way (...) for the Artifactual Theory to account for the locations of ficta. I conclude by discussing some potential applications of this contribution to other areas of philosophy. (shrink)

According to possibilism, or non-actualism, fictional characters are possible individuals. Possibilist accounts of fiction do not only assign the intuitively correct truth-conditions to sentences in a fiction, but has the potential to provide powerful explanatory models for a wide range of phenomena associated with fiction (though these two aspects of possibilism are, I argue, crucially distinct). Apart from the classic defense by David Lewis the idea of modeling fiction in terms of possible worlds have been widely criticized. In this article, (...) I provide a defense of a possibilist account against some lines of criticism. To do so, I assume that names for fictional characters are directly referential and a possible-worlds model that accommodates transworld identity. On this background, I argue, it is possible to construct an elegant model of fictional discourse using familiar models of information exchange in ordinary discourse, and I sketch how this model can be used to i) make a natural distinction between fictional and counterfactual discourse, ii) account for creativity, and iii) sustain a natural definition of truth-in-fiction that avoids certain familiar objections to possibilism. Though I set aside questions about the metaphysical commitments of a possible-world interpretation here, there is accordingly reason to think that the battle over possibilist treatments of fiction will have to be fought over metaphysical foundations rather than technical shortcomings. (shrink)

Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously.

No fictional character is more renowned for his powers of thought and observation than Sherlock Holmes. But is his extraordinary intellect merely a gift of fiction, or can we learn to cultivate these abilities ourselves, to improve our lives at work and at home? We can, says psychologist and journalist Maria Konnikova, and in Mastermind she shows us how. Beginning with the "brain attic"--Holmes's metaphor for how we store information and organize knowledge--Konnikova unpacks the mental strategies that lead to (...) clearer thinking and deeper insights. Drawing on twenty-first-century neuroscience and psychology, Mastermind explores Holmes's unique methods of ever-present mindfulness, astute observation, and logical deduction. In doing so, it shows how each of us, with some self-awareness and a little practice, can employ these same methods to sharpen our perceptions, solve difficult problems, and enhance our creative powers. For Holmes aficionados and casual readers alike, Konnikova reveals how the world's most keen-eyed detective can serve as an unparalleled guide to upgrading the mind. (shrink)

In the Addenda to Naming and Necessity (1980), Kripke famously argues that it is false that there could have been unicorns, or more properly, that “no counterfactual situation is properly describable as one in which there would have been unicorns.” He adds that he holds similarly that ‘one cannot say of any possible person that he would have been Sherlock Holmes, had he existed.” He notes the “cryptic brevity” of these remarks and refers to a forthcoming work for elaborations—the (...) work being, of course, the John Locke Lectures (2013). Coming as it does at the end of Naming and Necessity, it is natural to read this discussion as drawing out consequences of Kripke’s non-descriptivist picture of proper names and names of natural kinds. In fact, so much is suggested there by Kripke himself. The question thus arises: can the contentious claims quoted from the Addenda be defended independently of Kripke’s rejection of descriptivism? I shall argue that, as appears from the John Locke Lectures, they can be. (shrink)

Abstract: Many, if not most philosophers, deny that a sentence like ‘Sherlock Holmes smokes’ could be true. However, this attitude conflicts with the assignment of true to that sentence by natural language speakers. Furthermore, this process of assigning truth values to sentences like ‘Sherlock Holes smokes’ seems indistinguishable from the process that leads speakers to assign true to other sentences, those like ‘Bertrand Russell smokes’. I will explore the idea that when speakers assign the value true to the (...) first sentence, they are not mistaken or confused — that we ought to take these assignments at face value. I show how the most popular alternative to this idea is inadequate for explaining various sentences involving fictional names. In addition, I offer evidence that these truth value assignments to sentences are tracking semantic content rather than pragmatic effects. (shrink)

Meinong’s thought has been rediscovered in recent times by analytic philosophy: his object theory has significant consequences in formal ontology, and especially his account of impossible objects has proved itself to be decisive in a wide range of fields, from logic up to ontology of fiction. Rejecting the traditional ‘prejudice in favour of the real’, Meinong investigates what there is not: a peculiar non-existing object is precisely the fictional object, which exemplifies a number of properties without existing in the same (...) way as flesh-and-blood detectives do. Fictional objects are in some sense incomplete objects, whose core of constituent properties is not completely determined. Now, what does it imply to hold that a fictional object may also occur in true statements? We shall deal with the objections raised by Russell and Quine against Meinong’s view, pointing out limits and advantages of both perspectives. (shrink)

¿Por qué decimos que la excepción «confirma» una regla? ¿No sería mejor decir lo opuesto, que las excepciones refutan que esa regla se cumpla? Partiendo de ahí este libro plantea, como afirma en su prólogo el filósofo italiano Mario Perniola, «un tema del todo actual». Empieza defendiendo que, por sorprendente que parezca, sí, una excepción confirma una regla. Ya Cicerón o Leibniz se dieron cuenta de ello. Pero no conviene exagerar con tales excepciones. De hecho, este ensayo aventura que en (...) nuestra cultura, durante los últimos siglos, se ha venido dando todo un ataque a la diferencia entre reglas y excepciones. Ataque que alcanzó su mayor virulencia entre los «maestros de la sospecha» del s. xix: Marx, Nietzsche y Freud. ¿Qué hacer, pues? ¿Cabe creer aún en algunas reglas? El autor sostiene que para ello nos será fecundo aprender de fuentes tan variadas como Ludwig Wittgenstein, la filosofía hermenéutica y un detective de ficción creado por G. K. Chesterton: el padre Brown, mucho más razonable que el mismísimo Sherlock Holmes. (shrink)

The starting point of this paper is a statement that Benjamin makes in a group of notes he writes for his project of a detective novel. Benjamin writes here that «criminal and detective could be so friends [so befreundet sein] as Sherlock Holmes and Watson». We’ll try to understand the meaning of this statement through the investigation of the detective topic in two moments of its fore and afterlife: its fore life in Benjamin’s meditation on the baroque and its (...) after life in Sherlock Holmes’s most recent apparition, in the BBC series Sherlock. One of the most interesting elements of this series is in fact the relationship – which is barely sketched in Conan Doyle’s stories – between Sherlock Holmes and his antagonist, the maths professor Jim Moriarty. We’ll see that in Benjamin’s notes for a detective novel the criminal is not a maths professor but a psychoanalyst. What is the difference, anyway, between professor Moriarty’s knowledge and Sherlock’s knowledge? In fact, we will find out that criminal and detective are closer to one other than what we may be induced to think – close but not coincident. (shrink)

Appréciée tant du grand public que de la communauté des « holmésiens », la série télévisée Sherlock de Mark Gatiss et Steven Moffat (BBC, 2010-) est une fidèle adaptation, dans le monde contemporain, des histoires du personnage littéraire humain le plus souvent porté à l’écran. On explique généralement la popularité de l’ami du docteur Watson par le fait qu’il incarnerait le triomphe rassurant de la raison scientifique sur le désordre social engendré par la criminalité. Au-delà d’autres qualités du show, (...) ce texte fait l’hypothèse que le succès du personnage et la réussite de la série viennent d’abord de ce que le monde dans lequel Sherlock Holmes agit chez Conan Doyle n’est pas plus ordonné que celui dans lequel nous vivons aujourd’hui. Dans cette perspective, le célèbre détective est moins un scientifique dont les certitudes auraient pour principale vertu de nous rassurer, qu’un philosophe susceptible de nous apprendre à vivre avec l’incertitude. (shrink)

In recent years, apparently the Big Bang as described by the Lambda CDM-Standard Model Cosmology has become widely accepted by majority of physics and cosmology communities. Even some people have concluded that it has no serious alternative in horizon. Is that true? First, as we argued elsewhere, Big Bang story relies on singularity. In other words, when we are able to describe the observed data without invoking singularity, then Big Bang model is no longer required. Therefore, here we explore a (...) few alternative stories other than Big Bang story, which most cosmologists believe it is the nearest to Biblical account of creation. We would argue that re-reading of Genesis 1:2 will lead us to another viable story, albeit the alternative has not been developed rigorously as LCDM theories. We also briefly discuss a fluid Maxwell equations of Prof. Tsutomu Kambe based on vortex sound theory. (shrink)

In “Semantics of Fictional Terms,” Garcia-Carpintero critically surveys the most recent literature on the topic of fictional names. One of his targets is realism about fictional discourse. Realists about fictional discourse believe that: (a) it contains true sentences that have fictional names as their subjects; (b) sentences containing names can be true only if those names have referents; (c) fictional names have fictional characters – abstract objects – as their referents. The fundamental problem that arises for realists is that not (...) all true sentences containing fictional names are plausibly about abstract objects. This leads to the need to introduce disjunctive conceptions of property attribution that Garcia-Carpintero claims are implausible, and that realism should therefore be rejected. He also maintains, however, that (a) is correct. I agree. Furthermore, I am also committed to anti-realism about fictional discourse – that fictional names have no referents. Garcia-Carpintero claims that my view is simply a notational variant of realism. I argue that this is false – that my view could not possibly be a notational variant of any extant realist theory. (shrink)

Natural languages can express some logical propositions that humans are able to understand. We illustrate this fact with a famous text that Conan Doyle attributed to Holmes: “It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. This is a subtle logical statement usually felt as an evident true. The problem we are trying to solve is the cognitive reason for such a feeling. We postulate here that we (...) accept Holmes’ maxim as true because our adult brains are equipped with neural modules that perform naturally modal logical computations. (shrink)

Allan Franklin has identified a number of strategies that scientists use to build confidence in experimental results. This paper shows that Franklin's strategies have direct analogues in the context of computer simulation and then suggests that one of his strategies—the so-called 'Sherlock Holmes' strategy—deserves a privileged place within the epistemologies of experiment and simulation. In particular, it is argued that while the successful application of even several of Franklin's other strategies (or their analogues in simulation) may not be sufficient (...) for justified belief in results, the successful application of a slightly elaborated version of the Sherlock Holmes strategy is sufficient. (shrink)