Interesting point. Intuition could also just be another name for "appropriately weighted priors".
Holmes tends to arrive at the correct conclusion, presumably by Bayesian reasoning. If he didn't have any useful priors (i.e. an understanding of human motivation, thought, emotion and behavior) the observable evidence alone might not be enough to make any hypothesis sufficiently likely.
Where the characters supposedly inform their priors differs (if I can trust this article as representative of Father Brown since I haven't read the books). Holmes has a habit of disguising himself to infiltrate and eavesdrop on people. I posit that there is less selection bias in that process than building a theory of crime based on the confessions of english catholic church-goers. But maybe that group is a diverse enough population that the model would generalize?
I guess a 'good' character is ultimately one that serves its narrative and perhaps in that they are equal?
Holmes tends to arrive at the correct conclusion, presumably by Bayesian reasoning. If he didn't have any useful priors (i.e. an understanding of human motivation, thought, emotion and behavior) the observable evidence alone might not be enough to make any hypothesis sufficiently likely.
Where the characters supposedly inform their priors differs (if I can trust this article as representative of Father Brown since I haven't read the books). Holmes has a habit of disguising himself to infiltrate and eavesdrop on people. I posit that there is less selection bias in that process than building a theory of crime based on the confessions of english catholic church-goers. But maybe that group is a diverse enough population that the model would generalize?
I guess a 'good' character is ultimately one that serves its narrative and perhaps in that they are equal?