One of my most beloved heroes in literature is Sherlock Holmes. I have loved his stories since I was a boy. I have now had a chance to reread this story and I come away again enchanted. The beginning of this story is a massive treasure trove of fascinating items mostly just under the surface. What went into the production of these few paragraphs provides a fascinating window into the time that they were written and the mind of the author.

First, the beginning of this story immediately shows that it was written in the late 19^th century and you can tell even if you didn’t know who wrote it. The language is formal and has an air of not being recent. People just don’t write fiction this way anymore.

For example, When Dr. Watson admits to his ignorance of the existence of the Diogenes Club, Holmes explains his ignorance by chalking it up to nature of the club and the men who frequent it. He explains “There are many men in London, you know, who, some from shyness, some from misanthropy, have no wish for the company of their fellows. Yet they are not averse to comfortable chairs and the latest periodicals. It is for the convenience of these that the Diogenes Club was started.” Who talks this way anymore!? There is an intellect and formality to it that is lacking in more recent speech. People who would talk this way now would be laughed at to scorn.

Also, the most amazing part of this section of the story was when Holmes and Dr. Watson meet up with Holmes’ brother Mycroft. Holmes is instantly put in an odd place of being a student at the feet of a master. It is not the normal place for Holmes. Usually the author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, puts Holmes on display as the master of deductive reasoning especially in the beginning of his stories having Holmes completely read a client without the client doing or saying anything. This is not at all the case in this story however. From a perch in the Diogenes Club Holmes and Mycroft look below into Pall Mall in London and using methods of deductive reasoning completely describe the recent life history of a man walking around below with Mycroft correcting Holmes.

“An old soldier, I perceive," said Sherlock.

"And very recently discharged," remarked the brother.

"Served in India, I see."

"And a non-commissioned officer."

"Royal Artillery, I fancy," said Sherlock.

"And a widower."

"But with a child."

"Children, my dear boy, children."

"Come," said I, laughing, "this is a little too much."

"Surely," answered Holmes, "it is not hard to say that a man with that bearing, expression of authority, and sunbaked skin, is a soldier, is more than a private, and is not long from India."

"That he has not left the service long is shown by his still wearing his ammunition boots, as they are called," observed Mycroft. "He had not the cavalry stride, yet he wore his hat on one side, as is shown by the lighter skin of that side of his brow. His weight is against his being a sapper. He is in the artillery."

Within these lines hides something else that gives us a look into the mind of Doyle himself. This use of deductive method is an amazing ability and the fact that Doyle can use it in his stories suggests that Doyle himself was a master at it. It comes out in his writing. He writes with a precision of a doctor. His creation, Sherlock Holmes, became famous for his use of deductive reasoning in his cases all the while patiently (and at times impatiently) explaining how simple it was with an “Elementary, my dear Watson.” Elementary indeed!

But Mycroft’s and Holmes’ use of deductive reasoning in this story is not, in my mind, what was so amazing about the brilliant detective or his brother. What was so amazing to me was the remarkable speed in which they accomplished the process of deduction. In seconds, they often knew much of someone’s life history merely by looking at him. How was this accomplished? I believe that besides being a master of deductive reasoning Doyle was also a master of inductive reasoning.

Evidence of this is found in the second paragraph of this story. Doyle, narrating as Dr. Watson, writes, “It was after tea on a summer evening, and the conversation, which had roamed in a desultory, spasmodic fashion from golf clubs to the causes of the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic, came round at last to the question of atavism and hereditary aptitudes.” The rhythm of the conversation is not one of deductive reasoning but of inductive reasoning.

I used to think that inductive and deductive reasoning are mutually exclusive. I don’t think so anymore. Effective deductive reasoning is entirely dependent on previous inductive study. Inductive reasoning merely involves the searching out fragments of useful information from pre-studied categories and patterns. Once the bits of information by category are in place then and only then can the process of deduction begin. In order for the categories and patterns to be set in place one has to study things out before.

The whole science of deduction is undermined, however, by the imposition of arbitrary stove-piping or the overspecialization of subject matter. One has to know how the subjects intermingle. How do get from golf clubs to biological atavism and heredity? This is an exceptionally valuable skill and I wish I had it consistently. All the great generals and thinkers throughout history had it. Clausewitz in his book On War calls it coup d'oeil and said that with it you can sense the rhythm of events to such a degree that you can reasonably predict the future. The concept of coup d’oeil is a fascinating one. All the great generals had it. Clausewitz called in the German Überblick des Feldherrn or overview of the commander. In the Princeton translation it is rendered in the French coup d’oeil which literally means “stroke of the eye.” Clausewitz comments:

Und von der anderen Seite ist dieser leichte Überblick des Feldherrn, diese einfache Vorstellungsart, diese Personifizierung des ganzen kriegerischen Handelns so ganz und gar die Seele jeder guten Kriegführung, daß nur bei dieser großartigen Weise sich die Freiheit der Seele denken läßt, die nötig ist, wenn sie über die Ereignisse herrschen und nicht von ihnen überwältigt werden soll. .” (Clausewitz, Carl Von (1989-06-01). Vom Krieg (Achtes Buche: Kriegsplan. Kapitel Einleitung, end of the fifth paragraph). “When all is said and done, it really is the commander’s coup d’oeil (Überblick des Feldherrn), his ability to see things simply, to identify the whole business of war completely with himself, that is the essence of good generalship. Only if the mind works in this comprehensive fashion can it achieve the freedom it needs to dominate events and not be dominated by them.”

That is how Napoleon was able to have such impeccable timing in battle. Dante also described this skill in part of the 23^rd canto of his Paradiso section of the Divine Comedy. “Nel suo profondo vidi che s’interna, legato con amore in un volume, ciò che per l’universo si squaderna: sustanze e accidenti e lor costume quasi conflati insieme, per tal modo che ciò ch’i’ dico è un semplice lume.” “In its depths I saw bound up in one volume the universe within a single notebook: its substance and accident. All its operations and consequences thereof all interfused together in such a manner that all that I speak of is but one single simple light.” (Dante Aligieri: Paradiso Canto XXXIII)

I think of it as a “god's eye” view of a variety of fragments of information from a wide variety of subjects stitched together into a big picture lying on a metaphorical table within the mind. This table is a paradigm. Without a paradigm, none of the fragments make sense and even a rudimentary process of deduction is short circuited. In order for effective deduction to occur, however, one has to be aware of and be able to use multiple paradigms. Holmes and Mycroft had at their disposal multiple paradigms from which they were able to draw in their respective careers. And apparently, so did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

The Quandry

Much has been discussed over the last few months about the proposals of the Obama administration in regards to health care. Both would expand the power and authority of the federal government to heretofore unseen dimensions. Conservatives (both Republican and Democrat) are not enthused about this considering these measures to be a threat to Federalism, the private sector and individual liberty in general. Liberals (especially on talk radio and "The View") are enraged by what they call obstructionism from the right.
But this is all very simple people. Let me demonstrate by analogy. Let's say that my wife is pregnant and needs an abortion to save her life. Or let's say I have a teenage son who has such a bad case of pneumonia that if he doesn't get medical care from a hospital, he will die. Do I have the right to go to my well off neighbor and, at gun point, raid his bank account and confiscate his capital gains earnings to force him to pay for treatment of these legitimate medical issues? Do I have the right to hire someone else to do so? Do I have the right to get my Senator to do it? Theft is theft whether it be with a gun are a government program. Such class warfare is never good. In every society, class warfare left unchecked has only resulted in societal masochism with terrifying results. And it always starts small with legitimate issues like social justice and the "Robin Hood complex" that the federal government seems to be afflicted with these days.
In sum, it is, I believe, Henry Weaver who said it best. "Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own….The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional 'do-gooders', who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others – with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means."

And Madame la Guillotine awaits.

The Economy

The year was 1992; George H.W Bush was running for reelection. I had just turned 18 and was entering my last year of High School. I was also paying more attention to politics and had decided to register as a Democrat. During the Democratic Party primaries I had rooted for the now late Paul Tsongas and was a little disappointed when Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton got the party nod. To be honest I didn’t really know a lot about Paul Tsongas’ platforms. What I do remember was a commercial of his that I had seen where he was swimming. The commercial promised that if elected Paul Tsongas would immediately call an economic summit to deal with the then economic recession. This appealed to me. I figured that something needed to be done about the economy. And I was impressed that somewhat in government had come out and offered to really look at the problem and address the issues. I was disappointed when he lost the Primaries. I got over it though when I heard Bill Clinton speak. Say what you will about him, he is a good orator. I once heard him speak where he quoted scripture. That too impressed me. He quoted part of Proverbs 29:18, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” I don’t remember anything else he said, I just remember getting a good feeling when he spoke.

Looking back though, I fully realize that I knew nothing when it came to the economy in general and the Democratic platform in particular. I think that I was a Democrat only because my parents were Republican. I was excited to get to vote but, admittedly, I did not know what I was voting for. Eventually, I could not make up my mind because I just did not understand. So I went with the “safe” vote. I voted for Bush. That’s right, as a Democrat, I voted for Bush. I didn’t know why I was voting for him at all. But I knew that if I had voted Democrat, My father would have asked me why. I would not have been able to answer, so I avoided the issue and voted for Bush.

My father remains (warts and all) one of the smartest men I know. Politically, he could be a little intimidating but only because he asked good questions and if you did not have good answers, you looked stupid. This was driven home one evening that same year when we had a discussion about minimum wage. I, being a teenager who earned minimum wage, was all for the government raising it. My father was against it. He had been a small business owner who had burned out and sold his business. He understood well the consequences of government intervention into the economy. He understood the effects on business owners that raising the minimum wage would have. He explained how such government intervention might hurt the very people (especially me) that the government thought they were helping. He explained it from a small business point of view. He said that small businesses don’t often have a whole lot of money to throw around. If they have to choose between paying so much for taxes (or go to jail for tax evasion) and pay a government-mandated minimum wage hike for employees (the number of which you can control) guess which one you are not going to pay? A primary effect may be that workers looking for jobs are hurt because employers simply cannot hire them, they cannot afford too. A secondary effect is that small businesses cannot hire needed help to handle the workload of running a business, which causes more stress for the business owner.

My father had a really hard time explaining this to an 18-year old kid who made minimum wage and didn’t understand a thing about economic cause and effect. This was not his fault. It was mine. It was and is my responsibility to do the research and understand these things.

Unemployment in France

When one looks at any aspect of society in France, one sentiment immediately rises to the surface, France will be France. The French just do things differently. And the issue of its chronically high unemployment rates is a case in point. The issue is not rooted in the whims of the French national and world markets or the political realities of the moment. It is, instead, rooted in French culture itself.

With the French Revolution, France, following the lead of the United States, became a pioneer of democracy. However, in that time the political structure has never been stable for very long. Indeed, since the French Revolution of 1789, France has had five republics with 15 constitutions. (Maqstadt 128) That being said, from Robespierre to Napoleon to Charles De Gaulle, the French have never left behind, at least never for very long, the public reliance on a strong central executive authority in a government that would constantly intervene and play a big part in the economy. The French call this dirigisme and despite brief departures from this tradition, it continues to this day in varying degrees throughout the French economy. (Maqstadt, pg.137, The Economist 2009) So much so “that the French idea of ‘national solidarity’ is tied to this dirigiste policy.” (MacArthur, 2006). The result is a large welfare capitalist state funded by high tax revenues and heavy social-security contributions making the public very dependent on the government in their daily lives.

An unfortunate side effect to this is the issue of French labor and chronically high unemployment figures. Indeed, over the years France has been plagued with high persistent unemployment to such a degree that the percentage of unemployment rarely dips below 8% even in good times (The Economist, 2009) In light of the current economic outlook, the numbers look even more troubling despite attempts to say otherwise (The Economist 2009). In the first quarter of 2009, 187, 800 jobs were lost. And this was after a troublesome year in 2008 where 30, 600 jobs were lost in the fourth quarter and 14, 500 in the third quarter. Young workers have been particularly hit hard with unemployment for workers under 25 at 21%. In heavily Muslim communities the rate is double that.

Plus, over the long term, these high unemployment rates are taking their toll on the economy. Over the 20 years, the number of jobs in industry has dropped by about ¼ %, going from 4.6 million to 3.5 million. (Barroux & Rey-Lefevre, 2009)

Further, the usual government method of taxing employers and employees with such heavy social-security contributions deters firms from creating jobs. This makes the funding of the welfare capitalist state increasingly difficult if not impossible as the demands of their much touted health care system, unemployment benefits and other public services increase draining the coffers and tax and contribution revenues needed to refill the coffers increasingly decrease.

In sum, the French government has two choices, cut benefits in the welfare state or raise taxes even higher for those who are still working. Both solutions are unwanted by French voters. But the French cannot have it both ways.

Sources:

1. Magstadt, Thomas M. Nations and Governments. Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2003

2. MacArthur, John R. “In Defense of French Dirigisme.” Harper’s Magazine 10 April 2006

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/04/InDefenseOfFrenchDirigisme. Accessed 9 April 2009

3. The Economist. “The French Model: Vive la Difference.” The Economist 7 May 2009

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610197.

Accessed June 9, 2009

4. Barroux Remi and Rey-Lefevre Isabelle. “L'emploi salarié s'est effondré au premier trimestre 2009.” Le Monde June 11, 2009

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2009/06/11/l-emploi-salarie-s-est-effondre-au-premier-trimestre-2009_1205472_3234.html#ens_id=1115932. Accessed on June 11, 2009