Where the logical fallacy is not (Generalization From Fictional Evidence)

Kung-fu example is interesting. Let's continue. If you speak about "actual fights" as "actual kung-fu fights" or "actual fights where one of fighters use kung-fu" then how many people saw any of that in real life or know how they are working or participated personally in one of them? And if the number of such people is really low and you do not have one of them as your instructor, then how do you know that your kung-fu class is closer to real fights than those kung-fu movies?

I do not state that kung-fu movies or Sherlock Holmes cites are correct representations of reality (it would be quite strange), I say that the most of other representations (=models of reality) are more or less the same order of magnitude of correctness, and should be considered as such. If you go to kung-fu class with hope that it will help you to fight in the dark alley with 4 thugs, you are in a problem. Your best chance there is to flee and you'd better go to the running club twice a week then. I got a one-handshake experience of that where champion has been beaten hard because of incapacitated friend whom he couldn't leave. 

The stories of SH do not make any claims about the world and nether the less represent some aspects of it quite correct while Herodotus makes such claims and represents it at least skewed and at most completely false, probably honestly mistaken. 

I state that you can personally distill knowledge of reality and useful practical tricks (=more correct model of reality) from fiction books as well as from non-fiction books if you know where to look. 

P.S. real fights ARE fun to watch, you can see it by the number of downloads, but even these videos are usually illegal or hard to find, so the numbers are not very representative

P.P.S. This probably do not stand for current Hollywood production, such as Marvel series, from which there is really few things to distill into knowledge, though even they could be educational in some way.

Agreed with all said. Maybe I wrote it not clearly enough. But where is a fundamental error? I agreed with multidimensionality of any book or for that matter event, and don't think of it as one-dimensional. 

A lot of currently available "non-fiction" gives not more updates of reality than some fiction. 

By the way Mathematics is one of the few fields where you can and have to check everything by yourself from the first principles. In Physics it is harder. 

I trust my senses if I can reasonably be sure that I'm not in the altered state of consciousness. So what? 

Beliefs are important because without them you cannot act in this world. 

My point was that you should not dismiss the thoughts of knowledgeable author what he put into the mouth of some character in the story just because it's "logical fallacy" or "not real" while taking into consideration what your neighbour says on the similar matter. Of course if you are interested in being less wrong.

By excluding from the pool of knowledge of reality on which you update your beliefs any written "fiction" you deprive yourself of valuable chunk of information. This overconfidence is quite common error of rationalists and CFAR participants as I see. 

Exactly. "Fiction" means not real. But this doesn't mean that you shouldn't update your beliefs on some ideas from it. The problem is that what mainstream considers "non-fiction" has de-facto the same relation to reality as "fiction" but many people quite ready to update their beliefs on it, considering it to being the source of some facts, because this is called "non-fiction", right?