Scientific Thinking

As a (somewhat) scientific thinker, I was interested the various ways of observing and making sense of the world. I found these definitions of inductive (Bacon) vs. deductive (traditional) methods online at http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Inductive.html:

The inductive method (usually called the scientific method) is the deductive method "turned upside down". The deductive method starts with a few true statements (axioms) with the goal of proving many true statements (theorems) that logically follow from them. The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works

In the deductive method, logic is the authority. If a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, it must be true. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.


Here's the problem I have with the inductive method: Couldn't you find any observation in nature that will allow you to form any theory? Did Bacon recognize this as a problem, or did he leave that problem to those who followed him in developing what today is known as the scientific method?

I suppose this isn't too much of a stretch, considering that many religious groups of the time shared exactly in this kind of mindset. They say that anyone could justify anything from the Bible. But weren't people at this time claiming "Sola Scriptura" - only the Bible - without any guidance whatsoever from hierarchial figures or unifying doctrines? One small excerpt from a passage, even taken out of context, could justify an entire religious movement. This idea of microcosm as proof of macrocosm seems to be popular at this time in history.

To some extent, I would say this is true. But taken to the extreme, and we have problems.