Difference between revisions of "3210: Eliminating the Impossible"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Explanation: As still nobody has started this (at least when I started this!), here's my initial framework of an explanation. Which really needs a lot more work...)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
+
{{incomplete|This page was created by the one thing that actually was in the car. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
 +
 
 +
The discussion in this comic plays upon the phrase originating from the fictional Sherlock Holmes (and therefore also his author, Arthur Conan-Doyle) that "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1196-when-you-have-eliminated-all-which-is-impossible-then-whatever When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,"] which is used to describe his 'deductive reasoning' (although more accurately being '{{w|abductive reasoning}}') used to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him.
 +
 
 +
[[White Hat]] is expounding this principle, to [[Cueball]], as some key part of logic for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball responds by dismantling the core tenet through a critical analysis of various exceptions to this general rule. In the final panel, he demonstrates a pratical example of a misapplied version of the adage, which even White Hat agrees holds true as falsifying the stated hypothesis.
 +
 
 +
In the title text, it goes further in deconstructing how it might result in a logically incorrect {{w|argument from ignorance}}.
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==

Revision as of 22:25, 20 February 2026

Eliminating the Impossible
'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.
Title text: 'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.

Explanation

Ambox warning blue construction.png This is one of 67 incomplete explanations:
This page was created by the one thing that actually was in the car. Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

The discussion in this comic plays upon the phrase originating from the fictional Sherlock Holmes (and therefore also his author, Arthur Conan-Doyle) that "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth," which is used to describe his 'deductive reasoning' (although more accurately being 'abductive reasoning') used to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him.

White Hat is expounding this principle, to Cueball, as some key part of logic for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball responds by dismantling the core tenet through a critical analysis of various exceptions to this general rule. In the final panel, he demonstrates a pratical example of a misapplied version of the adage, which even White Hat agrees holds true as falsifying the stated hypothesis.

In the title text, it goes further in deconstructing how it might result in a logically incorrect argument from ignorance.

Transcript

Ambox warning green construction.png This is one of 46 incomplete transcripts:
Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

[White Hat and Cueball are standing together and talking. White Hat has one hand slightly raised.]

White Hat: As Sherlock Holmes said,
White Hat: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

[Close-up of Cueball's head.]

Cueball: What about the possibility that you forgot to eliminate a possibility?
Cueball: Or that you eliminated one incorrectly?
Cueball: Both of those remain, too.

[Zoom back out to show both parties. Cueball is holding his arms out.]

White Hat: You're being pedantic.
White Hat: It's just a general rule for deduction.
Cueball: But it's a bad rule.

[Cueball is now holding up one finger.]

Cueball: How often have you thought, "I can't find this thing, and I've searched the whole house. The only place I haven't looked is the car, so it must be there."
White Hat: ...And then it's never in the car.
Cueball: It's never in the car!

comment.png  Add comment      new topic.png  Create topic (use sparingly)     refresh discuss.png  Refresh 

Discussion

I’ve found that when looking for an item, I’ll search harder and more thoroughly in the places where the item is supposed to be, which is just frustrating and usually unsuccessful. Then I realized that if the item isn’t where it’s supposed to be, then it’s somewhere it isn’t supposed to be - so I start looking in those places. 170.64.111.76 20:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It also assumes exclusion of the middle. MithicSpirit (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

These guys sure are some professors of logic (I'm not sure if they own any doghouses, is what I mean). Fephisto (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

As and when the Explanation gets written (I imagine that someone's right in the middle of that now), it must be noted that Sherlock Holmes's self-proclaimed "Deductive reasoning" is really Abductive reasoning. (I actually blame Sir Arthur, rather than Sherlock (or 'narrator' Watson), for that error... But then he also believed in fairies, so obviously he's less than perfectly rational.) 81.179.199.253 21:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, nobody did do anything with it, in the last hour or so, so I scrawled something pretty basic for others to ruthlessly dismember and 'remember' in their own prefered fashion. 81.179.199.253 22:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I think its pretty nice how this comics number is a countdown from 3. Xkdvd (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
      comment.png  Add comment