**How do we explain to Prof. Behe (and other ID supporters) that a statistical induction is NOT A PROOF?**

Should we post this paragraph on Statistical Syllogism as an example of INDUCTION, and how FLAWED “Inductive Conclusions” can be?!

Read the paragraph below and tell me if I’m on the wrong track?

### Statistical syllogism

A statistical syllogism proceeds from a generalization to a conclusion about an individual.

[1] 90% of graduates from Excelsior Preparatory school go on to University.

[2] Bob is a graduate of Excelsior Preparatory school.

[3] Bob will go on to University.

This is a *statistical syllogism* .[6] Even though one cannot be sure Bob will attend university, we can be fully assured of the exact probability for this outcome (given no further information). Arguably the argument is too strong and might be accused of “cheating.” After all, the probability is given in the premise. Typically, inductive reasoning seeks to *formulate* a probability. Two dicto simpliciter fallacies can occur in statistical syllogisms: “accident” and “converse accident”.