Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lessons for Philosophers and Scientists from Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Lessons for Philosophers and Scientists from Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown

#11

Post by implements »

ardy42 wrote: post #4
crb002 wrote: post #2

Father Brown was a great respite while I was locked in solitary last year as a political prisoner of Iowa Chief Justice Susan Larson Christensen and her brother 4th District Chief Judge Jeff Larson. As a lion's paw she named every first degree blood relation except her brother to the Iowa House today - disgusting. For some reason I could only read a chapter at a time - the stories exhausted the mind. Not sure if it w…

> while I was locked in solitary last year as a political prisoner of Iowa Chief Justice Susan Larson Christensen and her brother 4th District Chief Judge Jeff Larson. As a lion's paw she named every first degree blood relation except her brother to the Iowa House today - disgusting. What now?

I’m translating it as “I fought the law but the law won, as a vulnerable prisoner I was kept on segregation for my own safety”.

“Lion’s Paw” might be from the Aesop's Fable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_and_the_Mouse

Re: Lessons for Philosophers and Scientists from Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown

#13

Post by alfl »

implements wrote: post #11
ardy42 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while I was locked in solitary last year as a political prisoner of Iowa Chief Justice Susan Larson Christensen and her brother 4th District Chief Judge Jeff Larson. As a lion's paw she named every first degree blood relation except her brother to the Iowa House today - disgusting. What now?

I’m translating it as “I fought the law but the law won, as a vulnerable prisoner I was kept on segregation for my own safety”. “Lion’s Paw” might be from the Aesop's Fable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_and_the_Mouse

I assume it’s a superlative “cat’s paw” - OP is saying that he thinks the judge has appointed family members as her own functionaries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_paw

Re: Lessons for Philosophers and Scientists from Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown

#14

Post by Elrac »

I think there's just one lesson, a no-brainer, to be learned here: That any halfway competent author can make his character appear superior in whatever way he chooses, because he obviously and literally has complete control of the narrative.

Implying that the rational character of Sherlock Holmes is morally challenged when compared with a character acting predominantly on his gut feelings is, I think, a contemptible insult to rationality and those people who choose to act rationally. A decent argument can be crafted that rational behavior is moral behavior more often than not, but I doubt that Mr. Foster, as a fan of religious apologist (i.e. "Liar for Jesus") Chesterton, could be brought to understand it.

Re: Lessons for Philosophers and Scientists from Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown

#16

Post by bobthechef »

alfl wrote: post #12

Holmes is the great rational detective. Father Brown the great moral detective. Both English. But what would Arsène Lupin, the great romantic thief from France, teach? Great artists steal.

That is a false dichotomy. Morality is a matter of reason and every human action is a matter of morality. The decision to reason correctly and submit to reason, as opposed to engaging in sophistry or frustrating and subverting reason to smuggle in immoral action, is a moral decision.

Re: Lessons for Philosophers and Scientists from Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown

#17

Post by feintruled »

Elrac wrote: post #14

I think there's just one lesson, a no-brainer, to be learned here: That any halfway competent author can make his character appear superior in whatever way he chooses, because he obviously and literally has complete control of the narrative. Implying that the rational character of Sherlock Holmes is morally challenged when compared with a character acting predominantly on his gut feelings is, I think, a contemptible…

Yes, they are both very entertaining characters, but their mysteries are very much tailored to their strengths. (Conan Doyle at least had Watson mention that there were many cases Holmes was not able to solve, but of course they were not worth documenting - Brown is nigh infallible).

The Father Brown stories can have some very amusing insights about human nature, though it seems that while one might be able to have a stab at employing Holmes' method one would have little chance of ever learning Brown's (which was basically to put yourself so firmly into the mind of the perpetrator as to make the solution obvious).

Re: Lessons for Philosophers and Scientists from Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown

#18

Post by rramadass »

mrec wrote: post #5
DougN7 wrote: post #3

Everyone has heard of Sherlock Holmes, but probably fewer (in the US) have ever heard of Father Brown. It’s a great series (from the BBC?) that I recommend to anyone looking for a nice calm detective series.

I'd really recommend the books rather than the series (though the latter isn't bad). Chesterton is one of my favourite writers, and the stories are short and easily digestible.

>and easily digestible.

The Father Brown stories are not easy to read! Chesterton's mastery of the language and turns of phrases makes it quite challenging to understand their meaning. But i believe that adds to the charm of the stories and perhaps maybe the reason why they are not as popular as the Sherlock Holmes stories.

Re: Lessons for Philosophers and Scientists from Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown

#19

Post by [deleted] »

dcanelhas wrote: post #10

"Utilitarianism, without a theory of value – a way of saying what is regarded as the desirable end, and why – is an empty and useless game." Utilitarianism, if I've read Mill correctly, does state that minimising suffering and maximising happiness is doing good. So it has its theory of value right there, built in. Stating that "X without Y is just a Z" isn't very insightful. A brush without bristles is just a stick.…

[deleted]

Re: Lessons for Philosophers and Scientists from Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown

#20

Post by dcanelhas »

Elrac wrote: post #14

I think there's just one lesson, a no-brainer, to be learned here: That any halfway competent author can make his character appear superior in whatever way he chooses, because he obviously and literally has complete control of the narrative. Implying that the rational character of Sherlock Holmes is morally challenged when compared with a character acting predominantly on his gut feelings is, I think, a contemptible…

Interesting point. Intuition could also just be another name for "appropriately weighted priors".

Holmes tends to arrive at the correct conclusion, presumably by Bayesian reasoning. If he didn't have any useful priors (i.e. an understanding of human motivation, thought, emotion and behavior) the observable evidence alone might not be enough to make any hypothesis sufficiently likely.

Where the characters supposedly inform their priors differs (if I can trust this article as representative of Father Brown since I haven't read the books). Holmes has a habit of disguising himself to infiltrate and eavesdrop on people. I posit that there is less selection bias in that process than building a theory of crime based on the confessions of english catholic church-goers. But maybe that group is a diverse enough population that the model would generalize?

I guess a 'good' character is ultimately one that serves its narrative and perhaps in that they are equal?

Post reply on HN