We use inductive reasoning in many everyday situations to evaluate others based on first impressions and observed behavior. In science, inductive reasoning is useful as a tool for progress, but when applied to humans, it is subject to exceptions and errors. This can be seen in crime prevention systems and stop-and-frisk practices, and it needs to be used carefully and restrictively when it affects individual rights.
We often see things as they are. We place a lot of trust in what we can see, so we place a lot of weight on first impressions when we meet people. As the saying goes, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression,” and we try to glean a lot of information about someone based on their mere appearance or a brief initial interaction. Based on these impressions, we form preconceived notions or expectations about the person. Then, over time, we try to understand the person’s personality by observing the patterns of behavior they exhibit in their daily life, the attitudes they display in their relationships with others, and so on. Consistent behavior is what we look for in this process. People often reveal their values and tendencies through their behaviors, and people evaluate and judge others based on that consistency.
Finally, we get to know a person more deeply through direct interactions and activities with them. It’s not just what they look like on the outside, but the depth of their thoughts, the way they speak, and the intent of their actions. Even in direct conversations and activities, we are constantly observing and interpreting the other person, evaluating them based on the image of the person that is imprinted in our minds. These everyday evaluations play an important role in social relationships and show that we naturally utilize the logical process of inductive reasoning to understand others.
This phenomenon occurs frequently in many different situations in everyday life, and many people tend to rely on it. This approach falls under one of the methods of reasoning, inductive reasoning, which is a logical way of thinking that starts from individual facts or experiences to arrive at a more general conclusion. In other words, it’s a process of gathering individual cases to draw general rules or conclusions. Inductive reasoning uses observed experiences to form patterns in people’s perceptions, which are often the basis for certain judgments. For example, the inference that “if you see a lot of people gathered in a certain place during rush hour, there must be a lot of jobs there” or the prediction that “it rains a lot every summer, so it will rain a lot this summer” are both forms of inductive reasoning.
Let’s look at a specific example. For example, if we learn that “Friends A and B work for a good company in Korea, make a lot of money, and live in a nice house,” and that “Friends C and D live in the United States, own a house with a pool, a nice car, and live very affluent lives,” and that “all four of these people studied abroad in the United States,” we often draw the conclusion that “people who studied abroad in the United States are more likely to live affluent lives.” Furthermore, they think that their friend E, who is about to leave for the United States, will also have a rich life with a secure future. These thoughts are the result of inductive reasoning, which often occurs in our daily lives, as we try to discover social patterns or regularities.
Inductive reasoning plays an important role not only in our daily lives, but also in science. Throughout history, many scientific advances have been made through inductive reasoning. For example, consider Newton’s discovery of the law of universal gravitation. Newton accidentally saw an apple falling to the ground and wondered why it always fell to the ground instead of flying into the sky. This led him to speculate that “the earth must have a force that attracts all objects,” which he later proved through experimentation and observation. Newton’s process is an example of inductive reasoning, in which an individual example (the falling of an apple) is used to derive a more universal and general law (gravity). His experiments with dropping heavy and light objects from the same height led to the conclusion that gravity acts on all objects. The consistency of his experiments led to the conclusion that gravity acts on all objects. In other words, inductive reasoning leads to the accumulation of scientific knowledge, which in turn leads to a more accurate understanding of the world.
However, inductive reasoning, which has contributed to the advancement of science, also has its weaknesses. Inductive reasoning starts from individual cases and derives general principles, but if exceptions are found, the principle breaks down. Inductive reasoning draws conclusions based on consistent experience, but there is always the possibility of exceptions along the way. The movie Minority Report provides an example of the limitations of inductive reasoning. In the movie, three seers have the ability to predict future crimes in advance, which allows the Bureau to arrest criminals before they happen. However, the premise of the movie is that “all past predictions have turned out to be true, so this one should be no different.” The idea is to catch criminals before they commit crimes.
The system seems perfect, but something happens later in the movie that breaks this premise. When the main character, John Enderton, a lieutenant in the Crime Prevention Bureau, is the subject of a prediction that he will commit murder, he realizes the contradiction in the system. To prove his belief that he won’t actually commit the murder, he takes one of the seers to the predicted scene, where he changes his mind and doesn’t commit the murder. This incident demonstrates that conventional inductive reasoning never guarantees an inevitable conclusion, exposing the fallacy of the system: that even a system designed on the basis of inductive reasoning can be undermined by exceptions.
In science, when an exception like this occurs, another round of observation and experimentation can lead to a new and improved theory. But in a sensitive field like crime prevention, errors in inductive reasoning are unacceptable. This is because it can lead to serious consequences that can violate a person’s life, liberty, and rights. In this regard, let’s take a look at the case of stop-and-frisk. Stop and frisk is a system that allows the police to ask a person to identify themselves if they are acting suspiciously. However, if the reason for the stop is not reasonable or the scope is not clear, it can be a violation of people’s basic rights. For example, if the police randomly ask for IDs and inspect bags of passersby near the rally site on the day of a university student rally, there is a high risk of human rights violations if the rationale is unclear. This is because it is based on the unsubstantiated inductive reasoning that “anyone near the rally is likely to be a participant”.
Inductive reasoning, which is useful in everyday life and science, can be used to advance progress in certain fields. However, in areas affecting social rights and individual liberties, its application should be carefully limited. The principle should therefore be that inductive reasoning with humans should always be recognized as fallible and its use limited.
