Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bawylie" data-source="post: 8085509" data-attributes="member: 6776133">Ok, let’s get semantic about it, then.I didn’t say he makes deductions, I said he makes conclusions. The example I gave about the thief and the dog comes from The Adventure of Silver Blaze. In that story, Holmes concludes that Silver Blaze (a horse) was stolen and a trainer was murdered.Lestrade, the cop, uses deductive reasoning and arrives at a suspect. He tells Holmes his theory of the case. Holmes, however, uses abduction in order to prove that the cops’ suspect is innocent. The actual culprit was the deceased trainer who had stolen and injured the horse to influence the outcome of (and win a bet on) the next big race. The guard dog did nothing while the theft took place.in the end, Holmes compliments Lestrade’s deductions (even says he’s a good cop), but points out that he lacks imagination and intuition. Logical deductions pointed to the wrong conclusion - Holmes solved it by imagining what might have happened that would also create the same evidence and clues.The story goes out of its way to make the point that the Intelligence (Investigation) check didn’t work while intuition did. Not in D&amp;D terms, but yeah.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bawylie, post: 8085509, member: 6776133"] Ok, let’s get semantic about it, then. I didn’t say he makes deductions, I said he makes conclusions. The example I gave about the thief and the dog comes from The Adventure of Silver Blaze. In that story, Holmes concludes that Silver Blaze (a horse) was stolen and a trainer was murdered. Lestrade, the cop, uses deductive reasoning and arrives at a suspect. He tells Holmes his theory of the case. Holmes, however, uses abduction in order to prove that the cops’ suspect is innocent. The actual culprit was the deceased trainer who had stolen and injured the horse to influence the outcome of (and win a bet on) the next big race. The guard dog did nothing while the theft took place. in the end, Holmes compliments Lestrade’s deductions (even says he’s a good cop), but points out that he lacks[I] imagination [/I]and [I]intuition.[/I] Logical deductions pointed to the wrong conclusion - Holmes solved it by imagining what might have happened that would also create the same evidence and clues. The story goes out of its way to make the point that the Intelligence (Investigation) check didn’t work while intuition did. Not in D&D terms, but yeah. [/QUOTE]

Verification