This blog post examines whether the inductive reasoning we use to judge people in daily life is a logical approach, exploring its limitations and risks.
We often see things as they appear. Because we place great trust in visible phenomena, we heavily rely on first impressions when meeting people. As the saying goes, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression,” we try to glean a lot of information about someone based solely on their appearance or brief initial interactions. These impressions can lead to preconceptions or expectations about the person. Later, as time passes, we strive to understand their character by observing their habitual behavior patterns and attitudes displayed in relationships with others. What we value most in this process is consistent behavior. People often reveal their values or tendencies through consistent actions, so others evaluate and judge them based on this consistency.
Finally, through direct conversation and shared activities, we gain a deeper understanding of the person. This involves comprehensively grasping not just outward appearances, but also depth of thought, tone of speech, and the intent behind actions. Even during direct conversations and activities, we constantly observe and interpret the other person, evaluating them based on the image of them imprinted in our minds. This evaluative approach, occurring in daily life, plays a crucial role in social relationships and demonstrates how we naturally utilize the logical process of inductive reasoning to understand others.
This phenomenon occurs frequently in various everyday situations, and many people tend to trust it. This method corresponds to inductive reasoning, one of the methods of inference. It is a logical way of thinking that starts from individual facts or experiences to reach more general conclusions. In other words, it is the process of gathering individual cases to derive general rules or conclusions. Inductive reasoning forms patterns in people’s perceptions through observed experiences, which often become the basis for specific judgments. For example, inferences like “Seeing many people gather at a specific location during rush hour suggests there are many workplaces there” or predictions like “Judging by the heavy rainfall every summer, this summer will also see heavy rain” are both part of inductive reasoning.
Let’s consider a concrete example. For instance, given the facts that “Friends A and B work at good companies in Korea, earn salaries in the tens of millions, and live in nice houses,” and “Friends C and D live in the US, own houses with swimming pools and nice cars, and lead very affluent lives,” and also knowing that “All four of these people studied abroad in the US,” people often conclude “People who studied abroad in the US are likely to live affluent lives.” Furthermore, they might conclude that Friend E, who is about to study abroad in the US, will also lead a secure and affluent life. This line of thinking is also a result of inductive reasoning frequently occurring in our daily lives, through which we seek to discover social patterns or regularities.
Inductive reasoning plays a vital role not only in daily life but also in the field of science. Historically, scientific progress has often been achieved through inductive reasoning. Consider, for example, Newton’s discovery of the law of universal gravitation. Newton happened to observe an apple falling to the ground and questioned why apples always fall to the earth rather than flying into the sky. This led him to hypothesize that “the Earth must possess a force that attracts all objects,” which he subsequently proved through experiments and observations. Newton’s research process exemplifies inductive reasoning, where a universal law (gravity) was derived from an individual case (the falling apple). His experiment, where he dropped heavy and light objects from the same height, led to the conclusion that gravity acts on all objects. As these experimental results were consistently validated, they solidified into the law of universal gravitation. In other words, scientific knowledge accumulates through inductive reasoning, enabling us to understand the world more accurately.
However, even inductive reasoning, which has contributed so much to scientific progress, has its weaknesses. Inductive reasoning starts from individual cases to derive general principles, but if an exception is discovered, that principle inevitably collapses. Inductive reasoning draws conclusions based on consistent experience, yet it inherently carries the possibility of exceptions occurring at any time. The film Minority Report presents a case illustrating this limitation of inductive reasoning. In the film, three precogs possess the ability to predict future crimes, enabling the Precrime Division to arrest criminals before incidents occur. However, this system operates on the premise that “since all past precognition cases proved accurate, this case will be no exception.” Based on this assumption, criminals are apprehended before crimes are committed.
This system appears flawless, but later in the film, an event occurs that shatters this premise. The protagonist, Precrime Division Chief John Anderton, becomes the subject of a prediction stating he will commit murder. This revelation forces him to confront the system’s inherent contradiction. To prove his belief that he will not actually commit the murder, Anderton takes one of the precogs to the predicted crime scene. There, he changes his mind and does not commit the murder. This incident demonstrates that existing inductive reasoning never guarantees a certain conclusion, exposing the system’s flaws. In other words, it shows that even this system, designed based on inductive reasoning, can be undermined by exceptions.
In science, when such exceptional situations occur, new observations and experiments can be conducted to establish a revised theory. However, in sensitive fields like crime prevention, errors in inductive reasoning are difficult to tolerate. This is because they can lead to serious consequences that infringe upon a person’s life, liberty, and rights. Consider the case of stop-and-frisk. Stop-and-frisk is a system allowing police to request identification from individuals exhibiting suspicious behavior. However, if the reason is unreasonable or the scope is unclear, it becomes a violation of citizens’ fundamental rights. For example, if police randomly demand identification and inspect bags from pedestrians near a university rally site on the day of the event, the grounds for such actions are unclear and highly likely to constitute a human rights violation. This is because it is based solely on the unfounded inductive reasoning that “anyone near the rally is likely to be participating.”
Thus, inductive reasoning, useful in daily life and science, can foster progress when applied within specific, limited domains. However, its application must be carefully restricted in areas affecting social rights or individual freedoms. Therefore, the principle that inductive reasoning applied to people must always acknowledge its potential for error and limit its use should be upheld.
