Deductive logic consistently applies the laws of contradiction, identity and excluded middle. This is why the conclusion of deduction is valid and necessarily follows from the premises.  The point is that valid inference (deduction) is built on the laws of logic, not the other way around.

Inductive logic is anti-logic. We call it inductive “logic” as a way to separate it from deduction, but it is not logic. The term “rational” technically means to be deductive, and the term “irrational” means to be inductive. All inductive conclusions do not follow from its premises, and thus, all induction is a non-sequitur fallacy. To be inductive is to be anti-logic. It is not even pseudo-logic, it is opposed to logic. If you affirm that induction’s conclusion produces knowledge, then at the same time, you deny the law of contradiction.

A quick example. Induction takes premises of “some,” and manufacturers the new information of an “all” in the conclusion. But to say  “all” and “some” are the same thing at the same time, is to deny the law of contradiction. Induction is anti-logic. You cannot deny the law of contradiction without using it, and so we know any system of thinking that uses induction produces no knowledge, let alone a body of knowledge. Thus, even before we get to scientific experimentation, the inductive observations, which science uses already systematically denies the laws of logic over and over. Science uses induction, and so science is also anti-logic. To affirm that science produces knowledge, is at the same time to deny the law of contradiction.

Also scientific experimentation is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.  For example,

H.1. If [Jack] eats [lots of bread], then his [belly gets full]. A, (B is C)
H.2. [Jack’s] [belly got full].  A is C
H.3. Thus, [Jack] ate [lots of bread] A is B

This is wrong. It could be that Jack ate a bowl of apples, and that is why his belly is full.  If you take this basic propositional logic and turn it into a classical syllogism, you will see that it commits the fallacy of an undistributed middle term.  Induction adds information into the conclusion that is not in the premises, this is where the laws of logic get violated.  In other fallacies it is easier to see, such as “some” in premises and then this gets changed to “all” in the conclusion. In affirming the consequent, (or an undistributed middle term in classical logic) the added information is the connection between the major and minor terms.  The premises do not provide a necessary connection between the major and minor terms, but the conclusion adds this new information. To say “there is not a necessary connection” and “there is a necessary connection,” is a contradiction.  

We have skipped the fallacy of empiricism, and only quickly dealt with induction and scientific experimentation.  Thus science is anti-logic. Science is anti-law-of-contradiction.  To say science produces knowledge is to kill logic, but you cannot deny logic without using it. Thus, science does not produce knowledge. To say science produces knowledge is a delusion and superstition.