福爾摩斯的演繹思維

世欽

What Sherlock Holmes Taught Us About the Mind

福爾摩斯系列小說(shuō)是人們閑暇時(shí)極好的消遣讀物，但如今它們竟然出現(xiàn)在醫(yī)學(xué)教授列給學(xué)生的專(zhuān)業(yè)書(shū)單中。這究竟是怎么回事呢？相信大家都曾被這位小說(shuō)中杜撰的天才偵探在破案時(shí)所展現(xiàn)出來(lái)的細(xì)致觀(guān)察力和嚴(yán)密的邏輯推理力所折服，是的，這便是醫(yī)學(xué)院的學(xué)生們要學(xué)習(xí)的內(nèi)容。醫(yī)院就如犯罪現(xiàn)場(chǎng)，我們需要精密的頭腦和理性思維來(lái)為病人診斷。

1. embark on： 開(kāi)始（工作），從事。

2. fusty： 傳統(tǒng)的，老式的；anatomical： 解剖的，（人體或動(dòng)物體）結(jié)構(gòu)上的；volume： 書(shū)籍；The Complete Sherlock Holmes：《福爾摩斯探案全集》。

3. 一個(gè)虛構(gòu)的偵探究竟能教給一位胸懷大志的神經(jīng)學(xué)家什么呢？on earth： 究竟；aspiring： 有志氣的，有抱負(fù)的；neurologist： 神經(jīng)學(xué)家。

4. 無(wú)論你的專(zhuān)業(yè)是什么，書(shū)中的深刻見(jiàn)解都能為我們的理性思維藝術(shù)提供很好的指導(dǎo)。 expertise： 專(zhuān)門(mén)知識(shí)，專(zhuān)業(yè)技能；insight： 深刻見(jiàn)解；rational： 理性的。

5. 利斯指出，福爾摩斯的創(chuàng)造者阿瑟·柯南·道爾本身就是個(gè)內(nèi)科醫(yī)生，有證據(jù)表明他以當(dāng)時(shí)一位出色的醫(yī)生——愛(ài)丁堡皇家醫(yī)院的約瑟夫·貝爾為原型塑造了福爾摩斯這個(gè)人物。Arthur Conan Doyle： 阿瑟·柯南·道爾（1859—1930），生于蘇格蘭愛(ài)丁堡，因塑造福爾摩斯而成為偵探小說(shuō)歷史上最重要的作家之一，堪稱(chēng)偵探懸疑小說(shuō)的鼻祖；physician： 內(nèi)科醫(yī)生；infirmary： 醫(yī)務(wù)室，醫(yī)院。

6. try ones hand at： 一試身手。

7. 但利斯懷疑隨著故事的不斷展開(kāi)，柯南·道爾可能也從其他醫(yī)生身上汲取了靈感，比如威廉·高爾斯，他的作品被稱(chēng)為是“神經(jīng)學(xué)的圣經(jīng)”。

8. specialise in： 專(zhuān)門(mén)研究；neurodegenerative： 神經(jīng)組織退化的，神經(jīng)變性的；doctoral： 博士的； mutual： 共同的；Rudyard Kipling： 拉迪亞德·吉卜林，英國(guó)小說(shuō)家，詩(shī)人。

9. diagnosis： 診斷；clinical demonstration： 臨床示范；silver： 指Russell-Silver syndrome，一種罕見(jiàn)的先天疾病，主要特征為身材矮小，且通常在身體二側(cè)呈現(xiàn)左右不對(duì)稱(chēng)；syphilis： 梅毒。

10. 作為醫(yī)生，應(yīng)該養(yǎng)成且永遠(yuǎn)保持一個(gè)習(xí)慣，就是在病人走進(jìn)房間時(shí)就開(kāi)始觀(guān)察，注意他的外觀(guān)和步態(tài)。acquire： 獲得，學(xué)到；omit： 遺漏，疏忽；aspect： 面貌，神態(tài)；gait： 步態(tài)，步法。

11. 如果你能夠做到這一點(diǎn)，那么你應(yīng)該早就能看出他走路一瘸一拐。另外你現(xiàn)在肯定也看出他面色異常了，而事實(shí)上，你應(yīng)該早就能注意到這一點(diǎn)。lame： 瘸的；tint： 色彩，色調(diào)。

12. remarkably： 非常地；profile： 描……的輪廓，扼要描述；scant： 不足的，缺乏的。

13. inconsequential： 不重要的，無(wú)足輕重的。

14.“我一直以來(lái)都秉承見(jiàn)微知著的信念，”柯南·道爾在《身份案》中寫(xiě)道。axiom： 原理， 格言；infinitely： 無(wú)限地，極其。

15. preconception： 事先形成的觀(guān)點(diǎn)或思想； fog： v. 使迷惑，使困惑。

16. unprejudiced： 沒(méi)有偏見(jiàn)的，公正的；order of the day： 日常的事，慣例。

17. chastise： 嚴(yán)懲，譴責(zé)；“The Scandal of Bohemia”：《波西米亞丑聞》，福爾摩斯系列中一則短篇小說(shuō)。

18. 當(dāng)你面對(duì)一個(gè)全然不熟悉的病例時(shí)，那就暫時(shí)忘掉腦海中所有的病癥類(lèi)型和名字。

19. sui generis：（拉丁語(yǔ)）獨(dú)特的，特殊的；as such： 就其本身而論。

20. rival： 與……匹敵，比得上。

21. disturbance：（精神或身體的）失常； hysteria： 癔病，歇斯底里。

22. 我看完床頭卡又查看了他的牙齦，發(fā)現(xiàn)了畫(huà)家這個(gè)職業(yè)給他造成的影響——牙齦上有一條明顯的鉛線(xiàn)，就像床頭卡上記錄他職業(yè)的文字一樣清晰可見(jiàn)。gum： 牙齦； conspicuous： 明顯的，顯而易見(jiàn)的； lead-line： 鉛線(xiàn)，為鉛中毒特征性體征。

23. infer： 推斷，推理；pigment： 顏料，色料。

24. 類(lèi)似的例子還有很多：這兩個(gè)人都善于“反向推理”，比如逐一剖析導(dǎo)致某種疾?。▽?duì)于高爾斯來(lái)說(shuō)）或某宗謀殺案（對(duì)于福爾摩斯來(lái)說(shuō)）的所有可能性。dissect： 剖析，仔細(xì)分析。

25. 福爾摩斯的一句名言很好地總結(jié)了這種方法：“排除了所有的不可能，剩下的即使再不可能，那也是事實(shí)的真相?！盿phorism： 格言，警句；eliminate： 排除；improbable： 不大可能的。

26. confess： 承認(rèn)，懺悔；mole： 飛蛾。

27. humility： 謙遜；curse： 詛咒； afflict： 使受痛苦，折磨。

28. 最近幾年，倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院的認(rèn)知神經(jīng)學(xué)家依迪爾·道爾記錄了很多醫(yī)學(xué)和法學(xué)“專(zhuān)家”由于偏見(jiàn)而影響了判斷的案例——有的甚至是生死攸關(guān)。cognitive： 認(rèn)知的，認(rèn)識(shí)的； document： v. 記錄；apparent： 表面上的，貌似真實(shí)的；forensic： 法庭的，法醫(yī)的；bias： 偏見(jiàn)；life or death： 事關(guān)生死的，生命攸關(guān)的。

29. deduction： 推斷。

30. fine： 優(yōu)秀的，杰出的；mystery： 謎題。

Soon after Andrew Lees embarked on1 his medical career at University College Hospital London， one of his superiors gave him a rather strange reading list. Rather than the usual fusty anatomical volumes， it included The Complete Sherlock Holmes.2

What on earth could the fictional detective teach an aspiring neurologist？3 As it turns out， a good deal， as Lees recently wrote in a paper in Brain journal. Whatever your expertise， the insights provide a welcome lesson in the art of rational thinking.4

As Lees points out， Holmes creator Arthur Conan Doyle was a physician himself， and there is evidence that he modelled the character of Holmes on one of the leading doctors of the day， Joseph Bell of the Royal Edinburgh Infirmary.5 “I thought I would try my hand at6 writing a story where the hero would treat crime as Dr Bell treated disease，” Doyle recalled in a 1927 interview.

But Lees suspects that as his stories developed， Conan Doyle may have also drawn some inspiration from other doctors， such as William Gowers， who wrote the “Bible of Neurology”.7 （Conan Doyle himself had specialised in neurodegenerative disease as a doctoral student， and he and Gowers had a mutual friend in the author Rudyard Kipling.8）

Gowers often taught his students to begin their diagnosis from the moment a patient walked through the door， as seen in a record of one of his clinical demonstrations， later published as “A Clinical Lecture on Silver and Syphilis”：9 “Did you notice him as he came into the room？ If you did not then you should have done so. One of the habits to be acquired and never omitted is to observe a patient as he enters the room； to note his aspect and his gait.10 If you did so， you would have seen that he seemed lame， and you may have been struck by that which must strike you now—an unusual tint of his face.11”

Its remarkably similar to Holmes habit of profiling each person he meets based on the scantest of clues，12 as reimagined in the BBCs remake of the classic stories：

In particular， it was the importance of the seemingly inconsequential13 that seems to inspire both men. “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important，” Conan Doyle wrote in “A Case of Identity”.14

Both Gowers and Holmes also warned against letting your preconceptions fog your judgement.15 For both men， cool， unprejudiced observation was the order of the day.16 It is for this reason that Holmes chastises Watson in “The Scandal of Bohemia”：17 “You see， but you do not observe. The distinction is clear.” Or in the words of Gowers： “The method you should adopt is this： Whenever you find yourself in the presence of a case that is not familiar to you in all its detail， forget for a time all your types and all your names.18 Deal with the case as one that has never been seen before， and work it out as a new problem sui generis， to be investigated as such.”19

Occasionally， Gowers real-life powers of observation appear to have rivaled20 Holmes fictional hero. Consider his study of a man initially misdiagnosed with a psychological disturbance similar to hysteria：21

“I looked casually at the bed-card and at once my eye was caught by the record of his occupation ‘Painter. I looked from the bed-card to his gums， and there I saw written in equally distinct characters the record of the effect of his occupation—in a conspicuous lead-line.”22 By simply using his eyes to see what others had missed， Gowers correctly inferred that the man was being poisoned by his pigments.23

There are many other examples： how both men “reasoned backwards”， for instance， dissecting all the possible paths that may have led to a particular disease （in Gowers case） or murder （in Holmes）.24 This line of approach is perhaps best summarised as Holmes most famous aphorism： “When you have eliminated the impossible， whatever remains， however improbable， must be the truth.”25

But perhaps the most important lesson to be learned， from both Gowers and Holmes， is the value of recognising your errors. “Gentlemen—It is always pleasant to be right， but it is generally a much more useful thing to be wrong，” wrote Gowers， while Holmes admits： “I confess that I have been blind as a mole，26 but it is better to learn wisdom late than never to learn it at all.”

This humility is key in beating the “curse of expertise” that afflicts so many talented and intelligent people.27 Over the last few years， the cognitive neuroscientist Itiel Dror of University College London has documented many instances in which apparent experts in both medicine and forensic science have allowed their own biases to cloud their judgements—sometimes even in life or death situations.28

Whatever the exact nature of Gowers influence on Conan Doyle， Holmes lessons today offer a larger lesson in the power of logical thought. Even the most advanced technology can never replace the powers of simple observation and rational deduction29. As Lees says， the hospital “is still a crime scene”—and we still need the finest minds to solve those mysteries.30 As he found all those years ago， if you want to train your powers of deduction， you could do a lot worse than read （or reread） Sherlock Holmes.