In this blog post, we will look at whether the inductive reasoning we use to judge people in our daily lives is a logical method, and its limitations and risks.
We often see things as they are. As we have a great deal of trust in what we see, we place a lot of weight on first impressions when we meet people. As the saying goes, “First impressions are often the only ones you get,” we try to get a lot of information about others from their appearance or a brief interaction at the beginning. Based on these impressions, we may develop preconceptions or expectations about the person. Over time, we try to understand the person’s personality by observing their behavior patterns in everyday life and their attitudes in relationships with others. What we value most in this process is consistent behavior. People often express their values and tendencies through certain behaviors, so people evaluate and judge others based on such consistency.
Finally, we gain a deeper understanding of the person through direct conversations and activities with them. We get a comprehensive understanding of the person, not just their outward appearance, but also their depth of thought, tone of voice, and intention of their actions. Even in direct conversations and activities, we constantly observe and interpret our counterparts, and we evaluate them based on the image of the person that is imprinted in our minds. This way of evaluating people in everyday life plays an important role in social relationships and shows that we naturally use the logical process of inductive reasoning to understand others.
This phenomenon occurs frequently in various situations in everyday life, and many people tend to trust it. This method is one of the methods of reasoning, inductive reasoning, which is a logical way of thinking that starts from individual facts or experiences and reaches a more general conclusion. In other words, it is a process of collecting individual cases to derive general rules or conclusions. Inductive reasoning forms patterns in people’s perceptions through observed experiences, which often serve as the basis for certain judgments. For example, the inference that “if you see a lot of people gathering at a certain place during rush hour, there must be a lot of workplaces there” or the prediction that “since it rains a lot every summer, it will rain a lot this summer” are both part of inductive reasoning.
Let’s take a concrete example. For example, the fact that “friends A and B work for a good company in Korea and earn a million dollars a year and live in a nice house,” the fact that “friends C and D live in the United States and live a very affluent life with a house with a swimming pool and a nice car,” and the fact that “all four of them have studied abroad in the United States.” When people learn that, they often draw the conclusion that “people who have studied abroad in the United States are likely to live a prosperous life.” Furthermore, they also think that their friend E, who is about to study abroad in the United States, will also live a prosperous life with a guaranteed future. These thoughts are also the result of inductive reasoning that often occurs in our daily lives, and we try to discover social patterns or regularities through them.
Inductive reasoning plays an important role not only in everyday life but also in the field of science. Historically, the development of science has been achieved through inductive reasoning in many cases. For example, consider the law of universal gravitation discovered by Newton. Newton happened to see an apple fall to the ground and wondered why apples always fall to the ground instead of flying into the sky. This led him to the hypothesis that “the Earth has the power to attract all objects,” which he later proved through experiments and observations. Newton’s research process can be cited as an example of inductive reasoning, in which a more universal and general law (gravity) is derived based on an individual case (the fall of an apple). The results of his experiments, in which he dropped heavy and light objects from the same height, led to the conclusion that gravity acts on all objects. And as these experimental results were consistently proven, they became the law of universal gravitation. In other words, scientific knowledge is accumulated through inductive reasoning, and through this, we come to understand the world more accurately.
However, inductive reasoning, which has contributed to the development of science, has its weaknesses. Inductive reasoning starts from individual cases and derives general principles, but if exceptions are found, the principle will collapse. Inductive reasoning draws conclusions based on consistent experience, but it always involves the possibility of exceptions occurring in the process. The movie Minority Report provides an example of the limitations of this kind of inductive reasoning. In the movie, the three seers have the ability to predict future crimes in advance, and based on this, the Crime Prevention Bureau arrests criminals before the crimes are committed. However, this is based on the premise that “all past cases of prediction have turned out to be true, so this case will be no exception.” Based on this premise, the criminals are caught before the crimes are committed.
This system seems to be very perfect, but an incident occurs in the second half of the movie that breaks this premise. The protagonist, John Enderton, a crime prevention bureau chief, becomes the target of a prediction that he will commit a murder, and he realizes the contradiction of the system. Enderton takes one of the seers to the predicted scene to prove his belief that he will not actually commit the murder. And he changes his mind on the spot and does not commit murder. This incident shows that conventional inductive reasoning does not guarantee an inevitable conclusion, and it reveals the error of the system. In other words, it shows that this system, which was designed based on inductive reasoning, can also be destroyed by exceptions.
In the case of science, when such an exceptional situation occurs, a new theory can be established through further observation and experimentation. However, in sensitive areas such as crime prevention, the error of inductive reasoning is unacceptable. This is because it can lead to serious consequences that may infringe on a person’s life, freedom, and rights. Let’s take a look at the case of a police stop. A police stop is a system in which the police can ask a person who is acting suspiciously to identify themselves. However, if the reason is not reasonable or the scope is not clear, it is a violation of the people’s basic rights. For example, if a university student rally is held on a day when passersby near the rally venue are randomly asked for identification and bags are searched, there is a high risk of human rights violations if the basis for this is unclear. This is because it is based on an unfounded inductive inference that “everyone near the rally is likely to participate.”
As such, inductive reasoning, which is useful in everyday life and science, can be developed when used in a limited way in a specific field. However, its application should be carefully limited in areas that affect social rights or individual freedoms. Therefore, the principle that inductive reasoning applied to people should be aware of the possibility of error at all times and limit its use should be observed.
