Why, Moriarty is a Professor of Mathematics, of course! Aren't all evil genuises? :-)

As for the posting that started this discussion, I must admit that I am starting to wonder whether the fine detective may actually have been on to something. Yes, I can see immature minds using this as an excuse. And yes, I do believe that in their youth, children are capable of absorbing fantastic quantites of information, filling attics that are much larger than they would presume to possess. But I honestly think the principle stands. Rigid walls with defined limits as to what can be retained. And given that, his approach to learning that which is useful to him and ignoring that which is not is certainly interesting.

Having said that, this approach does not, categorically, rule out a breadth of knowledge. If one's chosen vocation is such that he/she requires a breadth of knowledge, it is well within reason to expect that he/she can acquire it. What it denies is the possibility (with the extreme exception) that one can reasonably expect to acquire both breadth and depth of knowledge.

Finally, I don't think this argument really applies to kids still in high school. I think that no matter what the chosen vocation, there is a basic competancy in core areas that must be acquired before one can hope to either specialize or broaden. Math, as it is predicated upon logic, is critical for practicing those faculties. Likewise, English/literature is necessary in order to gain sufficient communication skills as to comprehend anything else that one would wish to study. So while a high-schooler may try to exempt out of math by using Holmes' argument, I don't really think it applies to him/her.

In the end, what I think it is, is the practical recognition that human beings are finite and limited in their capacities to intake data. And this, is a very surprising stance, given Holmes' status as an Enlightenment figure.