I feel like this developer is trying to present a false dichotomy between his "Sherlock" method of debugging and the scientific debugging method. To be more specific, it seems as though the example he gave exactly fit the definition of the scientific debug method.
1. The author identified a problem he wanted to fix
2. He tried to guess the cause of the problem
3. He tested that guess
4. He analyzed the results of multiple trials.
5. When he was done with analysis, he worked out a fix and then tested again.
The only thing of note to the "Sherlock" method is that the author explicitly decided to spend a great deal of time in the guessing phase. What is my point here? Unless you already have experienced a bug and/or know exactly what is causing it right off the bat, the scientific method is still the most effective tool in your debugging arsenal.
This was my thought as well. Sherlock's method can be seen as a special case of the scientific method that focuses on gathering all the facts before making your HYPOTHESIS. (You can't call it a theory until you've tested it, and even then, the theory explains the facts, not the other way around.)
Also, completely missing from this story is how deductions are made and the difference between deductions, hypothesis, and facts.
For example, fact: The message isn't sent. Deduction: cURL works, so the problem isn't the system. Hypothesis: The problem is in the API.
1. The author identified a problem he wanted to fix
2. He tried to guess the cause of the problem
3. He tested that guess
4. He analyzed the results of multiple trials.
5. When he was done with analysis, he worked out a fix and then tested again.
The only thing of note to the "Sherlock" method is that the author explicitly decided to spend a great deal of time in the guessing phase. What is my point here? Unless you already have experienced a bug and/or know exactly what is causing it right off the bat, the scientific method is still the most effective tool in your debugging arsenal.