"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Doug Semler writes:

Premise: Strip clubs contain naked women.
Premise: Strip clubs do not contain ANYTHING that interests Mxmanic.
Conclusion: Naked women don't interest Mxsmanic.

So far, so good.

Therefo
Premise (a): Homosexual men are not interested in naked women.
Premise (b): Heterosexual women are not interested in naked women
(Undistributed Middle Conclusion and ad hominem attack): Mxsmanic is a
homosexual man or a heterosexual woman.

No, this is inductive logic, and therefore not reliable.

1. All A are B.
2. X is B.
3. X is A.

Incorrect.

1. All A are B.
2. X is A.
3. X is B.

Correct.


No, it is syllogistic (deductive) logic with a logical fallacy of an
undistributed middle (and an aside ad hominem attack). Hence my
parenthetical about the conclusion. Of course you knew that, since you are
a teacher of English, are supposedly fluent in the English language and have
basic reading comprehenshion skills.

For your edification (not like you'd understand this but...):
Inductive reasoning infers a universal based on observational premises.
Probably the most common form of inductive reasoning is a spam blocker,
which infers new item categorization based upon previously observed
categorizations (which is why spam blockers get more accurate as the user
categorizes more items; the increase in sample size allows more
specificity). You will also commonly hear this (the spam blocker, not
inductive reasoning) called a "Bayesian Classifier". Inductive arguments
are often referred to as "probabilistic."

Deductive reasoning infers its conclusions from the premises. Boolean
algebra, also symbolic logic, are forms of deductive reasoning. The
conclusions logically follow from the premises. A deductive argument is
valid if it follows the syllogistic rules (my argument above is not even a
valid argument due to the fallacy of undistributed middle). An argument may
be valid even if the premises are not true. A deductive argument is sound
if the argument is valid and the premises are also true.

Abductive reasoning infers the premises from observed conclusion. (Also
known as infering the causes, post hoc ergo propter hoc).

By the way, your statement that "inductive reasoning is unreliable" is
itself an inductive argument, and therefore unreliable (assuming that
inductive reasoning, is, in fact unreliable). Oh, yeah, that is ........
drum roll please ..... a circular argument