I'm wondering if deduction is in the end based on induction.
The problem of induction discovered by the Scottish philosopher David Hume is quite well known. On the other hand, it's commonly supported that deduction can't be falsified by a set of facts in the same way as induction can.
Let's use as an induction example (A):
1) All the crows I've seen so far are black, 2) Mark is a crow, 3) Mark is black.
Even if (1) and (2) are true, (A) can be falsified by a not-black crow.
Let's use as a deduction example (B):
1) All the crows are black, 2) Mark is a crow, 3) Mark is black.
If (1) and (2) are true, theres' no fact that can falsify (3), a conclusion that we deduce from the first two premises.
Now let's suppose a very strange fact: in the whole universe the logic laws start to fail. For instance, the principle of non-contradiction doesn't work anymore, and in B Mark is and is not black. This fact is way more weirder than a white crow (that would invalidate A), but being weird or even unimaginable doesn't mean that it can't happen.
The (inconceivable) failure of the laws of logic can be considered like a fact that would invalidate any deduction? Or it's considered like an a priori impossibility (but why, since we can't foresee the future)?
(This question is related to this one).