Editing 3210: Eliminating the Impossible

{{comic
| number    = 3210
| date      = February 20, 2026
| title     = Eliminating the Impossible
| image     = eliminating_the_impossible_2x.png
| imagesize = 675x349px
| noexpand  = true
| titletext = '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==
{{incomplete|This page was FOUND IN THE LAST PLACE YOU LOOKED. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The discussion in this comic plays upon the [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1196-when-you-have-eliminated-all-which-is-impossible-then-whatever phrase] originating from the fictional detective {{w|Sherlock Holmes}} (and therefore also his author, {{w|Arthur Conan Doyle}}) that "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This describes the {{w|abductive reasoning}} Holmes uses to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him. The point of the original statement is that {{tvtropes|RealityIsUnrealistic|something being ''unlikely'' does not make it ''untrue''}}, and ignoring reality because it is "unlikely" is both absurd and counterproductive to the process of solving a problem. However, Holmes' statement is a [https://motleybytes.com/w/HolmesianFallacy fallacy], because nobody is omniscient<sup>[&#8203;{{w|omniscience|no citation needed}}]</sup>, so it is impossible to rule out all alternatives.

In the real world, it is ''never'' true that eliminating the impossible leaves only a single possible outcome. There are always vast numbers of events that are technically possible, but so vastly improbable that they would be unlikely to ever be observed, even if every subatomic particle in the universe were a universe itself, and were to be observed from Big Bang to heat death. An example would be {{w|quantum tunnelling}} of a macroscopic object over a long distance... such as a set of keys from inside a house out to a car. In practice, such events are usually dismissed from consideration.

[[White Hat]] is expounding this principle to [[Cueball]] as a logical step for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball argues that human error - namely, making a mistake in the 'elimination' process - is also possible, and claims that the logic is faulty on this premise. When White Hat points out that the logic is just a guideline for problem-solving, Cueball argues that the possibility of human error when operating on this logic makes the approach unsound. If there is one true version of events, then finding it by this process requires classifying all other possibilities as impossible. While that might be possible for a constrained problem, like a detective story or multi-option question, many daily situations require eliminating vast numbers of possibilities, while lacking sufficient information to be truly sure that the possibilities have been exhausted.

In the final panel, Cueball demonstrates a practical example of human error causing this issue. When a person is looking for their possessions, their first instinct may be to search the house in which they presently are. Having seemingly exhausted this search, their assumption may be that it must be in their mode of transportation (especially in the case of possessions that are regularly brought to and from other locations). White Hat agrees that he himself has been in the situation where he has searched the entire house, not found what he is looking for, and assumed it is in the car, but that assumption has always proved to be wrong. There are other possibilities, but the tendency to jump to conclusions (possibly by misuse of the quote) can lead to those being ignored. Additional possibilities:
* The house has not been fully searched, with the item left in some obscured corner, a clothing pocket that is in the laundry, or even a vent or pipe that one could not practically access.
* The searcher forgets that they took the item to some other location, or wishfully ignores that possibility because it is far away and/or inconvenient to search.
* The searcher never brought the item home in the first place, but mistakenly thought that they did.
* The searcher has never taken the item anywhere other than the house or car, but is unaware that someone or something else moved it.
* It is common for people to fail to see a thing even though it is present, sometimes even clearly in view, because of momentary cognitive glitching, {{w|The Purloined Letter|poor assumptions}}, or more fundamental cognitive failures such as {{w|visual agnosia}}. Another Holmes quotation is relevant: "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/205730-you-see-but-you-do-not-observe You see, but you do not observe.]"
* The item may have been destroyed or altered in a way that makes it unrecognizable when found.

The title text goes further in deconstructing how the quote might result in a logically incorrect {{w|argument from ignorance}}. In fiction, there is a {{tvtropes|TheoryOfNarrativeCausality|Law of Narrative Causality}}, by which events are successfully resolved in the way that the plot requires them to be resolved. Stating this approach as a logical rule would normally be {{tvtropes|LampshadeHanging|narratively unsatisfying}}. When Sherlock Holmes first uses the phrase in ''{{w|The Sign of the Four}}'', he "deduces" that {{w|Dr._Watson|Watson}} had sent a telegram at the post office instead of doing anything else by observing that he had not written a letter and that he already had a good stock of postcards and stamps. Holmes neglects the possibility that Watson had sent a letter that he had written sometime previously, or any other possibility, yet he happens to be right because it would be unsatisfying were he to be wrong. As has been pointed out elsewhere in Holmesian works, however, Holmes knows Watson very well, and when it comes to a matter as narrow in scope as "Watson's behaviour", Holmes is better-equipped than most to eliminate impossibilities, even if these should strictly be considered ''improbabilities''.

Sherlock may have more accurately, yet less memorably, phrased the maxim as "When you have eliminated what is likely, the truth must be a more improbable outcome".

In ''{{w|The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul}},'' Douglas Adams commented on this Holmesian maxim:<blockquote>'The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, "Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that."&#8239;'

'Well, it happened to me today, in fact,' replied Kate. 

'Ah, yes,' said Dirk, slapping the table and making the glasses jump, 'your girl in the wheelchair [who was constantly mumbling stock prices from the day before]—a perfect example. The idea that she is somehow receiving yesterday's stock market prices out of thin air is merely impossible, and therefore ''must'' be the case, because the idea that she is maintaining an immensely complex and laborious hoax of no benefit to herself is hopelessly improbable. The first idea merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The second, however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and all its specious rationality.'</blockquote>

This time Cueball might have a point, since, if one really investigates Sherlock Holmes' cases, they often contain obvious mistakes, like most of "{{w|The Hound of the Baskervilles}}" or the solution of "{{w|The Adventure of the Speckled Band}}". In the latter he claims that the only solution is that someone trained a snake to be controlled by music to bite and kill someone without being attacked, claiming to have eliminated all other solutions in a real-world scenario which is too complex to allow for that, without even having taken a closer look at the bigger picture.

Knowing [[Randall]]'s work, the title text may be a jab at people who are overly quick to conclude that established results in physics are wrong, as he has done previously in [[955: Neutrinos]] and [[1621: Fixion]] (concerning a since-disproven finding that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light) and in [[2113: Physics Suppression]] and [[3155: Physics Paths]] (more generally).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[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. Cueball holds 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 holds 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!'''''

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Pedantic]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Fiction]]