“You Know my Method”: A Juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes

Abstract

In Patterns of Discovery, Norwood Russell Hanson claims that only inspired detective3 is equal to genre of guessing that results original scientific hypotheses, or, more technical terms, equal to applying retroductive inference to enterprise of scientific discovery. Such a scientist, like astute detective, must be capable of seeing in familiar objects what no one else has seen before.2 You Know My Method is an explication of this claim; it is building up of an analogy between two figures who immortalized concepts of retroductive inference and inspired detection Charles Peirce and Sherlock Holmes respectively. In his foreword to volume, Max Fisch ably captures essence of this analogy when he describes Sebeoks' book as a comparison of the historical Peirce and fictional Sherlock Holmes as detectives and as elaborators of theory of detection. The suggested points of similarity between Peirce's and Holmes* models of detection are more intriguing when Peirce and Holmes are viewed as theoreticians speculating about nature of process of deriving explanations for puzzling facts than when they are viewed as practitioners knee-deep actual sleuthing process themselves. My review shall examine book's comparison of Peirce and Holmes first as practicing detectives and second as theorists of detection strategy. The Sebeoks do cite one instance which Peirce assumes role of traditional detective-story sleuth; it is stated foreword that this incident was documented by Peirce an article published by Hound and Horn magazine several years after his death. During course of this episode, Peirce, like his fictional counterpart Sherlock Holmes, outmaneuvered official crime detectors. On discovering an expensive watch and chain missing while aboard Steamship Bristol New York, Peirce immediately lined up and interrogated all coloured waiters. In a matter of minutes, Peirce had brought his retroductive acumen successfully to bear on matter and had identified culprit. The case would have been speedily concluded had not Pinkerton Detective Agency, true to form of blundering officials depicted detective fiction, seen fit to disagree with Peirce's diagnosis of situation and shadowed wrong man.