Inductive Reasoning verses Deductive Reasoning and why I went wrong!

The difficulty of applying new analytic techniques to stock market analyses is the necessity of using Inductive Reasoning in our investigative process.  Inductive Reasoning is the operating mechanism of the Scientific Method.  Let me first define my terms.  Deductive Reasoning is the process we learned from Euclid when we studied Geometry. Deductive Reasoning of mathematics is an exhaustive process whereby a set of premises (givens) leads us to one and only one unique conclusion we call a Theorem.  A Theorem  is not a Theory.  A Theorem is a unique law of the universe derived through Deductive Reasoning.  A Theory, on the other hand, is a Hypothesis formulated from a series of observations in nature whereby an overwhelming series of valid arguments and experimental repetition form a body of evidence supporting the veracity of the Theory.  Any valid theory is able to predict an outcome within probability limits and demonstrates both causality and coherence. 
  
My New T Theory is based upon observations of an implied symmetry in the ten minute time-price series of The Dow Jones Industrial Average and its special underlying price oscillators.  Because of the verisimilitudes of the chart patterns, I formed a hypotheses that my new T Theory can be applied to more narrow market averages like the S&P Financial Sector average.  In my rush to judgement, I quickly concluded that if the theory worked on a more narrow market average then it could be applied to an individual commodity or a single stock.  Inductive Reasoning has led me to conclude that beyond any qualification or reservation my latest hypothesis is invalid!   DC January 19, 2010