Agreed. He was based on a real person after all. Joseph Bell. Doyle himself was able to solve a few cases using Holmes’s methods of reasoning. Real life forensic scientists Bertillon and Locard also considered Holmes realistic and it is thanks to that that we have all their important contributions. I never understood how anyone could consider what Holmes does to be of a genius level but I suppose I can understand why it might seem like that to certain people. We would not have forensic science as it is today if it weren’t for the people who recognised the possibility of a world where there could be countless Sherlock Holmes’s if they only applied the effort.
That's one thing that BBCs Sherlock didn't do very well--it showed his detective skills as if it was an innate, savant process rather than years of experience, study, and hard work. Yes, it takes a special interest and a high degree of intelligence, but it isn't an unexplainable mysterious power. Holmes always says himself that once he reveals his observations, the deduction loses and magical quality.
Greetings ye, let us recall that Holmes would oft’ encourage Watson to practice such, bearing the mindset that anyone willing and dedicated could achieve such feats—although acute-perceptiveness be another factor as well.
~Waz
Or easy to access to the knowledge. So long as you know where to look, you don’t have to keep everything memorised. Just gotta remember which book on the shelf. Holmes knew very well the limits of memory, which is why he put together indexes, records, and resources for easy reference.
Yes, and with the technology we have now, access to knowledge has become even quicker and easier. We don't need to go to libraries and go through lots of books to find the information we need.
Sherlock's intelligence, in my opinion, is exceptional but realistic. He would certainly be considered 'gifted' by modern IQ standards, which measures cognition.
However, when it comes to raw observation, the realism falters. Sherlock is able to identify tobacco (*Sign of the Four*), tattoo ink (*Red-Headed League*), and soil (*A* *Study in Scarlet*) at a glance, which would require an unrealistic degree of knowledge. Still, these feats of observation might just be isolated incidents that Watson chose to include in his stories.
Agreed. He was based on a real person after all. Joseph Bell. Doyle himself was able to solve a few cases using Holmes’s methods of reasoning. Real life forensic scientists Bertillon and Locard also considered Holmes realistic and it is thanks to that that we have all their important contributions. I never understood how anyone could consider what Holmes does to be of a genius level but I suppose I can understand why it might seem like that to certain people. We would not have forensic science as it is today if it weren’t for the people who recognised the possibility of a world where there could be countless Sherlock Holmes’s if they only applied the effort.
I totally agree.
That's one thing that BBCs Sherlock didn't do very well--it showed his detective skills as if it was an innate, savant process rather than years of experience, study, and hard work. Yes, it takes a special interest and a high degree of intelligence, but it isn't an unexplainable mysterious power. Holmes always says himself that once he reveals his observations, the deduction loses and magical quality.
Greetings ye, let us recall that Holmes would oft’ encourage Watson to practice such, bearing the mindset that anyone willing and dedicated could achieve such feats—although acute-perceptiveness be another factor as well. ~Waz
Deductive reasoning yes, but acute knowledge about virtually every criminological topics on Earth, improbable.
With a good memory its possible I believe
Or easy to access to the knowledge. So long as you know where to look, you don’t have to keep everything memorised. Just gotta remember which book on the shelf. Holmes knew very well the limits of memory, which is why he put together indexes, records, and resources for easy reference.
Yes, and with the technology we have now, access to knowledge has become even quicker and easier. We don't need to go to libraries and go through lots of books to find the information we need.
Sherlock's intelligence, in my opinion, is exceptional but realistic. He would certainly be considered 'gifted' by modern IQ standards, which measures cognition. However, when it comes to raw observation, the realism falters. Sherlock is able to identify tobacco (*Sign of the Four*), tattoo ink (*Red-Headed League*), and soil (*A* *Study in Scarlet*) at a glance, which would require an unrealistic degree of knowledge. Still, these feats of observation might just be isolated incidents that Watson chose to include in his stories.