Critical thinking

What field of study do you have to go into to have a way of thinking like this? (pic related). I know Sherlock Holmes is not a real person but has there been reports of people capable of having such a great attention to detail and logical thinking or is the Sherlock Holmes method of thinking is just bullshit?

It's a combination of Hollywood and real deduction techniques I guess. I did enjoy the show but at times it's far fetched as shit.

That being said, I'm also interested in a book or study teaching these methods so bump.

>le omnipotent omniscent omnivalent crime fighter
Oldest meme in the book, only meant to scare you into being obedient. These people don't exist OP stop believing in fairy tales.

The stories are designed in order for Sherlock Holmes to solve them, don't forget that.

So there's nothing like "deduction"? He doesn't mean exactly like Bendeddick Cucumbersnatch does in the series but there must be some good writing on it?

Just say "I don't know", we wont judge

Sherlock Holmes doesn't use logical thinking. He uses non-defeasible reasoning much more than deductive reasoning. Also that tv show is dumb, and nobody could think like its main character and arrive at correct conclusions. In the show, he just basically guesses correctly.

It isn't bullshit, but the writing for that show is fucking terrible. Please, watch the "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" aka "Sherlock Holmes" 1984 tv series staring Jeremy Brett. It is the best and truest depiction of the book series currently on film. You need to remember that thinking critically and really seeing everything is something people rarely ever do. They are normally on autopilot, so anyone even half paying attention to connect the dots is a whiz to them.

As far as your answer goes. It really depends on your level of dedication. Just about every job can get by with people who don't need to think so critically in that manner. I'd make a case for the medical field, but even that is pretty rote. Perhaps the best job for such skills would be in politics, religion, and the like. While those are not STEM, they do require knowing how to read people, read situations, and accurately predict outcomes in order to be very successful. The main problem with the "smartest man in the room" genre is that the smart man tells everyone he is smart and displays it as such. The book Sherlock was at least able to play characters who appeared stupid or at least not very bright and his ego was more about wanting to lift other people up to his level of thinking.

You're looking at fictional characters and wondering if you could do that in reality. It's like asking how nuclear waste will give you superpowers. Study real detective work if you want to know how crime investigation is done, not fictional characters.

You know, before the abomination that is the latest season. What I find actually hardest to believe is that he could do things like somehow seeing the scratch mark on a wristwatch from the other side of a crowded room, from the corner of his eye. Bitch please, nobody's eyes is that good.

That reminds me of this quote from Discword:
>Samuel Vimes dreamed about Clues. He had a jaundiced view of Clues. He instinctively distrusted them. They got in the way. And he distrusted the kind of person who’d take one look at another man and say in a lordly voice to his companion, “Ah, my dear sir, I can tell you nothing except that he is a left-handed stonemason who has spent some years in the merchant navy and has recently fallen on hard times,” and then unroll a lot of supercilious commentary about calluses and stance and the state of a man’s boots, when exactly the same comments could apply to a man who was wearing his old clothes because he’d been doing a spot of home bricklaying for a new barbecue pit, and had been tattooed once when he was drunk and seventeen* and in fact got seasick on a wet pavement. What arrogance! What an insult to the rich and chaotic variety of the human experience!

I am aware this is a show and not real cases. But I am just wondering if it's possible to develop a great deductive way of thinking? Any books or studies that could help? Reports of anyone having one? Maybe not as exaggerated like in the series of course

That is a good quote indeed. Those deductions are far fetched as shit a lot of the times but I do find it enjoyable mind you. And I'm sure there is some good reading on the matter

Sorry to break your dream kiddo, but there is no such thing.

Gensler, Introduction to Logic

This is a religious goof

>I guess
No need to guess.

Sherlock Holmes was based on a professor in medicine the author met as a student. And medicine to this day required deduction - unless you plan on being a serial killer.

High-capacity logistics, military strategy, actual detectives, forensics. There are a bunch of fields that require vast amounts of logic and attention to detail.

You'd need to acquire generic knowledge in many fields, and probably a lot of science knowledge specifically (mainly physics and chemistry). Once you have that, you can probably force yourself to notice clues and deduce things from them using your knowledge.

You start with Smullyan's First Order Logic then Model Theory by Bonzano(spelled wrong prolly), then you should learn axiomatic set theory because it's a theory of everything, then you need to learn a competing theory Category Theory by Steve Awodey, then you need second order logic and higher order logic so Foundations without Foundationalism and Type Theory by Thompson. Now you have a solid theoretical foundation you are ready to start reading about philosophy of science and the scientific method which is what sherlock uses, a combination of induction and deduction, you can start with Popper

A lot Sherlock Holmes exploits are sci fi bullshit.

Terrence Tao wrote something on deduction, I can't remember what it's called. You can identify anyone with 27 pieces of information about them or something like that

Sherlock's greatest asset is not his logic techniques, but his knowledge base. He knows how to infer from given information because he can attribute the factors correctly and accordingly. Brainlets think it is all about some logic game in a vacuum. It shadows his proficiency as a scientist and avid reader.