Sherlock... Holmes

My anthropology textbook (Core Concepts in Anthropology by Robert H. Lavenda and Emily Schultz) defines the term "positivism" as a belief that "...the world was accessible through five senses; that a properly disciplined mind could derive universal, objective truths from material evidence; and that a single scientific method could be applied to any dimension of reality..." (10-11).

And this definition makes sense to me. Becuase who is the perfect embodiment of these ideals? Sherlock Holmes. According to Wickipedia, Holmes himself characterizes his work in one short story, "The Sign of the Four." In it, he tells his slightly-less-bright-yet-loyal side kick, Watson,"It is of the first importance, not to allow your judgement to be biased by personal qualities. A client is to me a mere unit, -- a factor in a problem. The emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning..." (credit: Wickipedia)

But what does Holmes do when the problem can not be solved in his "dispassionate" style? Maybe these problems are only solved becuase he worked them to be solved. What does Holmes do when he realizes that to get the truest story he must acknowlege himself as part of the narrative? What if there is no way to capture information in a vaccumm? Maybe the second anyone, even Holmes, percieves the clue, the signal, it becomes contaminated by his world, his system, his science, and it is forever changed.