There are two types of arguments which are deductive and inductive arguments.

In

deductive arguments conclusion follows the premise. If we make a deductive argument the

premise must simply follow the conclusion. In deductive arguments conclusion is proved so

there is no uncertainty. Unlike deductive arguments, in inductive arguments the conclusion does

not guarantee the premise. So, the conclusions in inductive arguments are probable to happen but

not certain. Inductive arguments happen when we make assumptions about the basic

expectations of the world. We take our past experiences and assume that the future will be the

same. Such as in the statement “the sun will rise tomorrow”. We know that the sun will rise

tomorrow based on our experiences, however there is not a certainty whether it will rise

tomorrow or not.

In the movie Sherlock Holmes (2009) Sherlock uses inductive arguments while solving a

crime. Although he is known as an excellent detective and most of the inferences that he made

from his observations, he is just doing these inferences based on his past experiences. He is

observing the individuals and gather evidence to assume about who commit the crime. However,

in his arguments there are no absolute certainty that we can be sure of. His arguments are based

on probability. Such as, Holmes sees that in the lady there is a sunburn on her finger caused by

the ring. He took this as evidence a generalized that she had a failed marriage since there is no

ring on her finger currently. However, this argument that Sherlock does end up being wrong.

Another movie that we can give examples for inductive reasoning is 12 Angry Men (1957). In

the movie there are 12 juries that tries to decide whether a little boy committed a suicide or not.

At first, almost all the of juries were sure about the little boy is murderer since the court found

the boy guilty. However, a jury that that finds evidence that gathered insufficient, he tries to

challenge the beliefs of other jury members. When a jury claims that “I know that kind of people,
they are all liars” he generalizes about the people who live in the region that little boy lives. In

addition, there is a scene where the court finds a knife which is a unique and do not sell in every

store. So, the juries generalize that “if he had that kind of knife, he must kill his father”.

However, when they found that the knife that boy have is a knife that he can simply purchase

where the boy lives this conclusion found to be wrong.

 REFERENCES

Falzon, Christopher (2007) Philosophy Goes to the Movies: An Introduction to

Philosophy. London: Routledge.