Well Own8ge lets start form the beginning as see where that takes us.

Your first statement is that I am a J because I use Inductive Reasoning and not Deductive Reasoning.

So to start are let define Inductive and Deductive reasoning so were all on the same page.

**Inductive Reasoning**
Description

Inductive reasoning, or induction, is reasoning from a specific case or cases and deriving a general rule. It draws inferences from observations in order to make generalizations.

Inference can be done in four stages:

Observation: collect facts, without bias.

Analysis: classify the facts, identifying patterns of regularity.

Inference: From the patterns, infer generalizations about the relations between the facts.

Confirmation: Testing the inference through further observation.

In an argument, you might:

Derive a general rule in an accepted area and then apply the rule in the area where you want the person to behave.

Give them lots of detail, then explain what it all means.

Talk about the benefits of the parts and only get to the overall benefits later.

Take what has happened and give a plausible explanation for why it has happened.

Inductive arguments can include:

Part-to-whole: where the whole is assumed to be like individual parts (only bigger).

Extrapolations: where areas beyond the area of study are assumed to be like the studied area.

Predictions: where the future is assumed to be like the past.

**Deductive Reasoning**
Description

Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts with a general case and deduces specific instances.

Deduction starts with an assumed hypothesis or theory, which is why it has been called 'hypothetico-deduction'. This assumption may be well-accepted or it may be rather more shaky -- nevertheless, for the argument it is not questioned.

Deduction is used by scientists who take a general scientific law and apply it to a certain case, as they assume that the law is true. Deduction can also be used to test an induction by applying it elsewhere, although in this case the initial theory is assumed to be true only temporarily.

Discussion

Deductive reasoning assumes that the basic law from which you are arguing is applicable in all cases. This can let you take a rule and apply it perhaps where it was not really meant to be applied.

Scientists will prove a general law for a particular case and then do many deductive experiments (and often get PhDs in the process) to demonstrate that the law holds true in many different circumstances.

In set theory, a deduction is a subset of the rule that is taken as the start point. If the rule is true and deduction is a true subset (not a conjunction) then the deduction is almost certainly true.

Using deductive reasoning usually is a credible and 'safe' form of reasoning, but is based on the assumed truth of the rule or law on which it is founded.

Validity and soundness

Deductive conclusions can be valid or invalid. Valid arguments obey the initial rule. For validity, the truth or falsehood of the initial rule is not considered. Thus valid conclusions need not be true, and invalid conclusions may not be false.

When a conclusion is both valid and true, it is considered to be sound. When it is valid, but untrue, then it is considered to be unsound.

This is definitions are from

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning and since the are quite close to my logic text books definitions I figure they should be acceptable.

So with that in mind I need to understand your two points.

One that J = Inductive Reasoning.

You can't make this argument with out something to back it up.

It like saying the Sky = Purple pockadots.

Given the definition of what Inductive reasoning is why do you believe it is J?

Your second claim that you make in your first statement is that I use Inductive Reasoning not Deductive Reasoning.

The truth is I use both but why do you believe that my reasoning is Inductive and not Deductive?

Your turn.