The is quite open-ended philosophy here, so there is a lot I could say, but right now I feel like pointing out the biggest problem of deductive validity.
It seems to be circular, too self-contained, or basically self-affirming.
As you might know, to be deductively valid, the truth of the premise(s) must necessitate the truth of the conclusion. Generally speaking, deductivity tells us very little then. All A = B, there is A, therefore there is B. Duh. That is the simplest logical truth, but how useful is it really? All triangles have three sides. If we have a triangle, we must have something with three sides. The sentence seems silly because by saying triangle, we already said something that by definition has three sides, so the rest of the sentence is only necessary if someone didn't know the definition of triangle. It does not do anything other then affirm a definition. It's incredibly uninsightful.
So the problem is that inductive or deductive, we are never establishing a point of termination for our process of reasoning. It is true that induction could be seen as a sloppy structure of deduction, but even deduction could be seen as dependant on induction. Why do we
really assume that deductive reasoning is correct? Because it's never been wrong so far. So that's inductive.
But wait, how do we know...? It's really an oroborose.