The Philosophy of Misuse Versus Rightful Use of Probability: From Courts and Politics to Science and Reform
By: OMOLAJA MAKINEE
The concept of Probability is among the most powerful tools human reasoning has produced. It underpins quantum physics, drives economic forecasting, strengthens public health modelling, and makes possible entire new architectures such as blockchain. Yet, paradoxically, the very same concept—when transposed into the fluid and unpredictable domain of human psychology—has become the ground on which injustice is rationalised and political systems falter.
The misuse of probability occurs most prominently in courts and politics. In a courtroom, a jury or judge may lean on probabilistic reasoning about guilt or innocence. “Beyond reasonable doubt” is often interpreted in statistical shorthand, whether through DNA matches, witness reliability, or actuarial risk assessments. But unlike numbers on a dice, human behaviour is not governed by fixed distributions. Emotions, trauma, deception, and memory distortions do not obey linear probability laws; they fluctuate in ways that are fundamentally non-mathematical.
Psychextrics—the emerging science of linking neurotype, behaviour, and emotion—reminds us that no two minds are alike in their probability curves. To impose a mathematical probability on human behaviour is not science but pseudoscience in disguise. Psychextrics demonstrates that behaviour is coded by emotion-variants linked to neurotypes, creating vast and unpredictable variability in how individuals respond to identical stimuli. In such a fluid domain, probability can never produce certainty—it becomes a mirage of logic masking the chaos of human subjectivity.
Politics suffers from the same error. Elections in ballot-based systems rely on crude probabilistic aggregation: sample polls, predictions, statistical turnout models. The entire machinery of representative democracy rests on a probabilistic gamble that the majority’s will is accurately reflected in ballot counts, even though such counts can be skewed by misinformation, unequal access, or manipulation. Here again, probability collapses into misuse—human psychology, with all its biases, is being treated as a clean mathematical variable when it is anything but.
By contrast, when probability remains anchored in mathematics and empirical science, it thrives. The reliability of probability in blockchain technology exemplifies this: cryptographic consensus mechanisms work because the mathematics is unforgiving. No human bias, no political rhetoric, no psychological unpredictability can alter the truth of a time-stamped hash. Similarly, in physics, probabilities describe particle behaviour with breathtaking accuracy; in epidemiology, probabilistic modelling saves lives by anticipating viral spread. The line is clear: probability succeeds when tied to mathematical structure, fails when forced onto human subjectivity.
The deeper philosophical issue is that probability, when displaced into human contexts, begins to masquerade as certainty. A courtroom statistic about the “likelihood” of guilt appears rigorous, yet it is an illusion of precision. What is treated as a mathematical anchor is in fact a psychological shortcut, a way for judges or juries to clothe uncertainty in the language of numbers. Similarly, political polling is paraded as a barometer of the people’s will, but it reduces complex, fluid, and often contradictory opinions into narrow percentages that can be easily manipulated. Both contexts reveal the same flaw: probability is being forced to bear the weight of human unpredictability, which it was never designed to carry.
Social Misuse of Probability As Proof
History provides sobering examples. In 18th-century France, courts experimented with “probabilistic evidence,” reducing witness testimony into mathematical weights. Judges were instructed to treat one eyewitness as equal to a “half-proof,” while two eyewitnesses amounted to “full proof.” The system collapsed because human testimony, rooted in memory and perception, proved irreducibly complex; probability could not account for deceit, trauma, or bias. Likewise, in modern courts, DNA statistics have been misused to suggest near-absolute certainty of guilt, despite contamination risks or sample misinterpretation. What appears as scientific probability becomes, in practice, a dangerous veneer of authority.
Politics tells a similar story. The rise of Gallup-style polling in the 20th century was hailed as a revolution in democracy—finally, leaders could measure the will of the people. But the reality has been a distortion of political life into numbers that are less about representation and more about shaping opinion. Campaigns learned to weaponise polls, creating feedback loops where citizens were less participants in governance than respondents to surveys designed to guide strategy. The language of percentages became a substitute for dialogue. What probability measured was not truth but perception, easily bent to the interests of elites.
What results is not simply error, but distortion. In law, this distortion can destroy lives by condemning the innocent or excusing the guilty. In politics, it produces governance built on manipulation rather than truth, manufacturing consent through statistical theatre. These are not merely technical missteps but moral failings: the misuse of probability gives false legitimacy to decisions that cannot be verified in any rigorous way. It takes the language of mathematics—precise, unforgiving, impartial—and bends it into a tool for justifying power.
By contrast, the rightful domain of probability in science and technology proves the opposite lesson: that probability is powerful precisely because it is bounded. In physics, epidemiology, or blockchain, the variables are not fluid human emotions but fixed structures, measurable datasets, and repeatable processes. Here, probability produces clarity, guiding decisions with demonstrable accuracy. This sharp contrast between failure in human psychology and success in mathematical domains highlights the urgent need for societies to draw a firm boundary: probability is not a universal solvent of uncertainty but a contextual tool. Where human lives and freedoms are at stake, probability’s misuse is not neutral error—it is injustice itself.
Toward a Framework of Reform
Recognising this distinction gives us a pathway forward: societies must structurally re-anchor probability where it belongs, while excluding it where it corrupts.
- Governance Through Blockchain: Elections should migrate from ballot-based systems to blockchain verification. Here, probability is not speculated but proven: each vote becomes a mathematical certainty, auditable and immutable. In this way, probability strengthens democracy instead of undermining it.
- Data-Driven Public Health: Probability retains its rightful place in epidemiology, vaccination strategies, and resource allocation. Probabilistic models of spread, when anchored in large datasets, prevent pandemics rather than mislead societies.
- Economic Planning: Probability belongs in forecasting supply and demand, climate impact on agriculture, and investment risk modelling. Properly used, it guides societies toward stability and sustainability.
But just as vital as re-anchoring is excluding.
- Law Courts and Jury Trials: No case should be decided on probabilistic reasoning about human psychology. The false confidence of “likelihood of guilt” is precisely where miscarriages of justice occur. Law must rely instead on concrete evidence, verifiable proof, and structural protections of due process.
- Psychological Profiling: The attempt to quantify likelihoods of reoffending, truth-telling, or mental predispositions should be abandoned as pseudoscientific. These are not stable datasets but living, fluid minds.
- Political Campaigning: The industry of polling and probabilistic prediction has warped democracies into self-fulfilling manipulations. By replacing ballot systems with blockchain verification, societies can bypass probabilistic speculation altogether and anchor democracy in mathematical certainty.
If probability is to remain humanity’s ally, it must be re-anchored to domains where it functions with integrity. The first principle of reform, therefore, is architectural: societies must structurally separate probability-in-mathematics from probability-in-psychology. Where variables can be quantified and systems behave according to definable rules, probability sharpens foresight. But where behaviour is nonlinear, unpredictable, and saturated with emotional flux, probability must be restrained. This dual approach—anchoring and restraint—defines the path forward.
A Practical Pathway Forward
This framework is not simply critique but reform: probability must be structurally partitioned. Its domain is mathematics, science, and technology—not courts of law, not ballot boxes, not psychological verdicts. The rightful use of probability creates clarity, certainty, and innovation. Its misuse, by contrast, distorts justice and corrodes democracy.
The new challenge for societies is therefore philosophical as much as technical: to recognise that probability is not universal, but contextual. It is not a language of the human soul but of mathematics. Misapplied, it generates injustice. Rightly used, it builds new architectures of trust—blockchain governance, data-driven health, and rational economic planning.
In this distinction lies the possibility of a future where probability serves humanity without misleading it. It is not probability itself that fails us, but our failure to confine it to the realms where it belongs.
Back to 👇