“Novum Organum” Versus “Organon”

There are two methods that humans use when they reason and produce knowledge  about things, namely, deduction and induction. Whereas the former makes  something unknown be known by proceeding from general knowledge, the latter  proceeds to new general knowledge from some particular things that are already  known. Deduction, having this property, is argued to be a “solid” reasoning or  inference. Induction, on the other hand, is believed not to be a “solid” form of  inference because it tries to reach a prediction on the basis of some observations,  but that prediction can easily be refuted by something that is not observed by  itself. The basis of the critique directed to deduction is that the quality that  explains the “solidness” of the former is that what is to be explained is already  contained within the proposition that the inference rests on. In other words,  deduction does not provide us with new knowledge. Induction on the other hand  produces new knowledge through the general proposition that it expresses as a  conclusion. Depending on which argument is adopted, the only legitimate method  of science is asserted to be either induction or deduction. Nevertheless, in order  for human beings to think, they must use both methods. There is no quality that  makes one better over the other. Moreover, when the varieties of the being on  which induction reasons is taken into account, it can be seen that induction about  some objects is just as solid as the deduction itself.