To what extent is Holmes' statement a simplification of 'his' methodology in a very specific field (that of being a detective in fiction where the problem will be solved). More generally we all apply the process to some extent (it is #very# unlikely that (decommissioned gods) have stolen your keys/rearranged your computer etc) - even if it leads to the seemingly improbable conclusion that there are 'known (to be) unknowns or unknown unknowns involved.' And if one comes to the conclusion 'this conclusion is clearly false/illogical' one should reconsider the things considered impossible - Lord Kelvin #could# have deduced that 'the sun is fuelled by presently unknown processes' - or that the solar system began forming before the sun 'went luminous.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This is nonsense
"Despite it being a quotation from a fictional character (Holmes) starring in a series of detective novels where the narrative contrives to have the mystery inevitably solved thanks to the hero's superior powers of observation, the saying is often mistakenly attributed to Arthur Conan Doyle himself." Are we really saying that Doyle didn't write it, but that Holmes did? Did Holmes exist outside out Doyle, somehow? Terrible writing here. (just venting here because i can't fit all that in the edit box.) Avida Dollarsher again 12:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Avida Dollars — I think the distinction is supposed to be made between something that the character said vice the author independent of any story. After all, rarely do people format quotes as:
“”"You're a wizard, Harry."
“”"No [Luke], I am your father."
- Compared to:
“”"Life doesn't happen in chapters — at least, not regular ones."
|—Terry Pratchett, Booksource.com interview, 2008|
- Which isn't something any of his characters said. —ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)