In your own words, explain the difference between deductive and inductive logic.
Deductive reasoning makes a conclusion based on a large basis of information, deducting possibilities until reaching said conclusion. Inductive reasoning takes a small amount of information, and reaches a conclusion by generalising (hence when it is used in science, conclusions are only seen as true until proven wrong).
What are the problems with each of these kinds of logic and what we can do to overcome some of these problems?
Due to generalisation, inductive reasoning assumes that a small sample of information is all inclusive. The most famous example of inductive reasoning failing would be the white swans of Europe and the black swans of Australia- falsely believing that because only white swans were seen in Europe, black swans didn’t exist. Deductive reasoning is not inherently flawed, however as omniscience is impossible (or merely theoretical to us now), the information provided to reason deductively with is often acquired using inductive reasoning, thus flawing the method.