Published on August 17, 2019.
This essay examines, from the standpoint of logic, opposition party questioning and mass-media discourse surrounding the Moritomo document-alteration issue.
Using statements by Hideya Sugio, Kazunori Yamanoi, Kenji Goto, Shigeyuki Kishii, Hiroshi Hoshi, and others as examples, it argues that expressions such as “it is impossible,” “it is certain that,” “it cannot be helped if people say,” and “one has no choice but to say” are fallacies of inductive reasoning unsupported by objective evidence.

August 17, 2019.
The phrase often used by Diet member Kazunori Yamanoi, “It is certain that they will…,” the phrase often used by Kenji Goto of Hodo Station, “It cannot be helped if people say…,” and the phrase often used by Shigeyuki Kishii of Sunday Morning, “One has no choice but to say….”
This is a chapter I published on April 24, 2018, under the title, “They can be called unjust inductive principles derived from the fallacy of false simplification.”
The following is the continuation of the previous chapter.
2. Logical check of inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is the approximate derivation of a concluding concept from premise information, under a correct argumentative structure and in accordance with empirical principles.
2.1 Argumentative structure.
Inductive reasoning requires an argumentative structure that derives a conclusion from objective information as its premise, but in the current opposition party questioning, statements in which this minimum requirement is not secured can be seen here and there.
At the House of Councillors Budget Committee on March 16, 2018, Democratic Party member Hideya Sugio hysterically condemned Minister Aso with the following assertion.
“Minister Aso has asserted that ‘it was done by some officials of the Financial Bureau,’ and is shifting responsibility onto Director-General Sagawa.
In mass-media terms, this is cutting off the lizard’s tail.”
Minister Aso explained, based on the interim stage of the investigation, that “at the present stage it is clear that some officials of the Financial Bureau were involved in the rewriting.”
In response, without objective information, Sugio asserted, “Minister Aso is shifting responsibility onto Director-General Sagawa.
It is cutting off the lizard’s tail.”
This is a fallacy called an argument from personal assurance, in which inference is made on the basis of personal conviction.
Whatever the facts may be, this kind of evidence-free assumption becomes a cause that gives rise to false accusations.
2.2 Principle.
Inductive reasoning derives conclusions based on empirical principles, but in the current opposition party questioning, there can be seen many instances of pursuit that abuse such principles, as noted in the article of March 15, 2018.
〈Mainichi Shimbun, “Witness summons as early as next week; reluctantly playing the ‘Sagawa card’” …… The opposition parties are strongly objecting, saying, “It is impossible that bureaucrats would order alterations based only on their own judgment.”〉
Because there are no absolutes in human behavior, this principle of “impossible” is in substance nothing other than an inductive principle that can be replaced by the words “probably not.”
And in reality, this inductive principle can be said to be nothing more than a conjecture on the level of “the possibility is small,” rather than “probably not.”
The conjecture that “the possibility is small” can be said to have a high degree of rationality when used for forming a hypothesis, but it cannot be used for determining facts.
To determine facts, some kind of objective evidence is necessary, and obtaining that evidence is precisely what “pursuit” means.
In this situation, there are signs that some opposition party members are mistaking the act of repeatedly confronting the administration with this principle of “impossible” and making it acknowledge that principle for “pursuit.”
It is probably because of this misunderstanding that they have repeatedly demanded from the government a “proving of non-existence,” which is positioned as an error in the argumentative structure of inductive reasoning.
Incidentally, at the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s press conferences, there is a newspaper reporter who hysterically repeats the same question many times without presenting evidence and thinks that this is “pursuit,” and I infer that this reporter is committing the same misunderstanding.
In addition, many statements, including the phrase often used by Diet member Kazunori Yamanoi, “It is certain that they will…,” the phrase often used by Kenji Goto of Hodo Station, “It cannot be helped if people say…,” the phrase often used by Shigeyuki Kishii of Sunday Morning, “One has no choice but to say…,” and the phrase often used by Hiroshi Hoshi of NEWS23, “I get the feeling that…,” can all be called unjust inductive principles derived from the fallacy of secundum quid, or a dicto simplification, and the fallacy of false simplification.
Needless to say, an inductive principle that has not been verified has no effect whatsoever in determining facts.
This article continues.