Later in the 4th century BC, Aristotle configured 2 different types of logic. They were deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning respectively. Let me talk about deductive reasoning first.

Actually, all the above examples are using deductive reasoning, which is, using either a general principle or a collection of specific data to draw a specific conclusion. A deductive statement or proposition is usually stated in the form of a syllogism, which consists of 3 parts: the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion. "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; Therefore Socrates is mortal." This example exactly shows all the 3 parts. Hence, this kind of argument is much more easier and simpler to test for errors, that sort of things. The conclusion must be true if the premises are true, not that "true", but true in their own terms, not necessary to be related with the truth of the world.

Now, let me introduce inductive reasoning. I bet you must have used this kind of logic when you are doing a science project. You need to accumulate all the facts you can find about a certain substance like water or steam from experiments, measurements or calculations. Finally you draw a conclusion. Consequently, you are using inductive reasoning, that is, using a number of proven facts to draw a general conclusion.

As we have observed for over thousand of years that we conclude all swans are white. What if suddenly a black swan comes out? Would the conclusion that all swans are white be rejected? The answer is no, probably. It would still be true that most of the swans are white. That's why an inductive argument never ends, since it is always open up to the possibility of being unnatural.