10 Ridiculous TV Premises Everybody Fell For

The major problem in all of detective fiction is that, by necessity, you’re writing stories about the prowess of men and women far, far smarter than you. House MD gets around this perennial issue rather conveniently, by creating a specialised setting in which the detective is an expert in a field - diagnostic medicine - which few members of the audience will be familiar with.

Murder mystery shows like the BBC’s Sherlock, adapted from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic stories, don’t have this luxury. In order to show off Sherlock’s dizzying intellect, he has to be able to deduce things no normal man could deduce. The problem is, he’s not actually using deductive reasoning, for the most part: he’s using abductive reasoning.

What’s abductive reasoning? Without going into too much fiddly detail, it’s when you take observed facts and form a hypothesis that satisfactorily explains them. A wrestler lies on the mat and another wrestler stands over him with a metal folding chair. Hypothesis? The second wrestler has hit the first wrestler with the chair.

Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock is forever using abductive reasoning to analyse facts about people and events. The problem is that he then relies upon - and immediately acts upon - those hypotheses, treating them as conclusive in and of themselves.

Of course, it’s just as probable that he’d be completely wrong. What if the first wrestler threw the folding chair to the second wrestler and collapsed to the mat, feigning unconsciousness to have his opponent disqualified? If that sounds unlikely, then you’ve just fallen for Eddie Guerrero’s classic referee misdirection technique. Bad ref. Bad.

Rarely, if ever, does Sherlock test whether his hypothesis is accurate before acting upon it. However, he’s being written by someone of only average intelligence with no background or interest in genuine problem solving and logical puzzle techniques. The show therefore creates an environment whereby, despite the massive potential for error, Sherlock is pretty much always right.

It’s a magic trick, sleight of hand to distract the viewer and make them believe that the character is an extraordinary detective. It doesn’t work if you remove that artificial environment of success, though.

Take any scene of brainy brilliance from an episode of Sherlock. Without the context in the plot of the episode, in which Sherlock is automatically correct, ask yourself whether there could be another hypothesis that also explains the facts being observed.

Nine times out of ten, you’ll come up with another one, two, or maybe more explanations for the facts on display. But that’s the problem with writing detectives who are much smarter than you are. You just can’t do them justice.