Deduction and Logic (Hounds)

So... while reading through the Hound of the Baskervilles I read a part talking about deductions that struck me.. now lets just see if i can find it.

Here it is. From early on.. don't know the page number..

. That may point to carelessness or it may point to agitation and hurry upon the part of the cutter. On the whole I incline to the latter view, since the matter was evidently important, and it is unlikely that the composer of such a letter would be careless. If he were in a hurry it opens up the interesting question why he should be in a hurry, since any letter posted up to early morning would reach Sir Henry before he would leave his hotel. Did the composer fear an interruption -- and from whom?"

"We are coming now rather into the region of guesswork," said Dr. Mortimer.

"Say, rather, into the region where we balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination, but we have always some material basis on which to start our speculation. Now, you would call it a guess, no doubt, but I am almost certain that this address has been written in a hotel."

"How in the world can you say that?"

"If you examine it carefully you will see that both the pen and the ink have given the writer trouble. The pen has spluttered twice in a single word and has run dry three times in a short address, showing that there was very little ink in the bottle. Now, a private pen or ink-bottle is seldom allowed to be in such a state, and the combination of the two must be quite rare. But you know the hotel ink and the hotel pen, where it is rare to get anything else.

Well here's another example of the deductions... but Dr. Mortimer touched on what I had my complaint about... Guessing and the probabilities he'd get it wrong. Stuff like the hotel pen/ink i can believe because it make sense. And has some more concrete reasoning behind it. However, for the interruption part... though it makes sense too, it seems more like an edcated guess.. Burt yet again that is exactly what he does all the time, make an educated guess based on his surroundings and the evidence presented. He just happens to be right most of the time - which might come from experience or whatever.

I just needed to blog on this... becuase truthfully I'm becoming more convinvced that Holmes knew exactly what he was talking about. First. He had the experience from all his experiments adn cases... and also he had a tendency not to reveal his thoughts to others unless he was positively certain of it. He also didn't lend himself to other people's theories and didn't form any definite ones of his own (with multiple circultating) until there was direct evidence. Little things that escaped us meant were defnite leads to him.

For example... when one of the boots disapear from the Baronet... we don't understand it but Holmes recognizes immediateley that it must be a real hound and not a supernatural one involved. yet he doesn't relate this to Watson.

Alrighte.. of to dinner and Merry Christmas to all since i forgot in the last post!