ENGH 202 Paper #2
Holmesian Knowledge
Spring 2017

Paper #2 on Sherlock Holmes’ methods is due Thurs April 6th in class or Fri April 7th in my office.  You are expected to have at least one tutoring session as you are working on the paper and required to have three over the course of the semester.  After your post on Holmes methods, begin to shape your ideas into paper form with an intro paragraph, transitions, more detailed evidence, and citations.  As you will see from the syllabus and blog there are several required post, comment and update requirements on the blog tied to this paper assignment.  See page/prompt 08 for details.

In this 2-3 page paper, you need to: 

• Describe and analyze two methods Holmes uses in his investigations.  Make sure to discuss specific examples.   
• Make an argument about the status of these methods (scientific, non-scientific, a mix, etc.)and optionally whether he is a scientific detective overall.  Make sure to define what you mean by science. 
  OPTIONAL:  make a related claim about the role of these methods in his practice as a consulting detective. Here think about why people consult and place trust in Holmes. Do objectivity or science play a role here? ALSO OPTIONAL:  What kind of knowledge does Holmes gain through applying his methods? For some possibilities, see the 2nd bulleted list from March 30th, beginning with Richard Feynman. 
• Along the way, quote from and analyze relevant scenes from A Study in Scarlet and one of the other Doyle stories we read:  A Scandal in Bohemia, The Red Headed League, The Man with the Twisted Lip, and if you want to jump ahead and read it on your own, The Final Problem. You are also invited to discuss the films we have watched but make sure to provide exact titles and dates and be precise and specific on any differences from Doyle’s stories.  Make sure to include in-text cites tied to a Works Cited (MLA) or References (APA) page.

Note that you need to hand with the paper a statement about your tutoring session(s) and what you changed based on the feedback you received.  I will also average in a zero to your class participation grade if you miss a tutoring appointment and do not cancel in advance. If you do miss an appointment, to avoid having a zero averaged into your class participation grade you will need to have an extra tutoring session and document it fully. If you are unable to attend an appointment, make sure to cancel well in advance of the start time of your appointment by contacting your instructor. 

A few of the techniques we will have discussed--and that you saw in Doyle, the two episodes of Sherlock we have watched (A Study in Pink and A Scandal in Belgravia) and the Brett TV adaptations from the 1980s--include Holmes' reconstructions of past events using physical traces, his acting skill and use of disguises and staged situations, precise measurement and careful observation, the use of newspapers, gazetteers, and other sources of information, the Baker Street Irregulars, putting himself in the place of others, decoding encrypted or disguised communications, locating relevant documents, eliciting confessions, gossip and personal accounts, and social knowledge (what certain types of people are likely to do). You may also want to consider whether the demonstrations at the beginning of many of the stories depend on the same methods he uses to solve his cases. 

Along the way--or after you account of at least two methods--discuss the mix of scientific and a-scientific techniques in his approach (and optionally, the larger question of what establishes Holmes' authority as an investigator within the stories). Since some of you think he makes lucky guesses, you could develop and support that claim as your thesis. Whatever your view, try to make some tentative generalizations about Holmes' methods using the examples you analyze (and optionally their authority and scientific status).  Make sure to define what you mean by science.  Note that in our study of Sherlock Holmes, I have been arguing that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle popularized the idea that ordinary problems could be resolved by consulting a scientific professional. That does not mean that all of his methods are scientific.  Some sources that may be useful here include: 

• The physicist Richard Feynman's famous and provocative 1964 lecture on scientific method, which begins with guessing, moves on to computing the consequences, and then comparing those to experience/experimentation.  Holmes was not so positive about guessing, but he did think probabilistically, as we have discussed. See The Sign of Four (not assigned), pp. 128-130.
• Rosemary Jann's claim, in Sherlock Holmes Codes the Social Body,  that "Holmes seldom tests the logical validity" of his reasoning.  Instead, "Doyle has simply arranged the plots" so Holmes "guesses correctly the first time, or easily eliminates alternative hypotheses."   See the first two paragraphs of her article  at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR2/jann.pdf
• The philosopher, Danny Scoccia's page from his Engineering Ethics class, What is a Profession, which defines a professional as "someone who possesses an expertise or knowledge about how to do things that are vital to our (the publics) well-being. . ."
• The Wikipedia article, Profession, which defines a profession as a "vocation founded upon specialized educational training the purpose of which is to supply objective counsel and service to others. . ." 

Make sure to provide specific examples and quotations with page cites from two of Doyle's stories.  If you discuss A Study in Pink or another film or TV adaptation, also provide specific examples and some context for when the elements you discuss come up in the video.  Do not mix up or blur the differences between Doyle's stories and the more recent adaptations but discuss them separately--at least at first--even if you see them as sharing the same methods.