David Baggett

Perhaps rather than being objectionably presumptuous, Sherlock on at least many occasions struck the right balance between intellectual cowardice on the one side and rashness on the other.

Indeed, Watson would later claim to be “repelled by the egotism” of Sherlock's insistence that Watson's chronicles should focus more on the logic than the story.

should focus more on the logic than the story.

“Crime is common. Logic is rare,”

“I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one's self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one's own powers.”

Even if Sherlock was mistaken in thinking that modesty required intellectual dishonesty, he made a good point in stressing that it's not necessarily immodest to acknowledge one's own gifts, any more than it would be to acknowledge those of another.

Holmes knew when his inferences were possibly wrong, and he didn't stop once he came to his tentative conclusions.

Like a good scientist, he put his ideas to the test, weighed them on the scales of balancing probabilities, and observed how well they were able to account for new evidence.

If he didn't err on the side of epistemic humility, at least he didn't fall prey to a debilitating sense of intellectual cowardice and diffidence.

He cared too much about finding the truth to be silenced by the possibility of error.