Although Bacon’s works are extremely instrumental, his argument falls short because observation and the scientific method are not completely necessary for everything. Bacon takes the inductive method too far, as seen through one of his aphorisms which says, "Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature: Beyond this he neither knows anything nor can do anything." As humans, we are capable of more than pure observation and can use deduction to form theories. In fact, we must use deduction because Bacon’s pure inductive method is incomplete. Thus, it is not Bacon’s ideas alone that form the scientific method we use today. If that were the case, we would not be able to fully understand the observations we make and deduce new theories. Author Ernst Mayr states, "Inductivism had a great vogue in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, but it is now clear that a purely inductive approach is quite sterile." Mayr points out that an inductive approach on its own just doesn’t work. One could observe an experiment multiple times, but still be unable to make generalizations and correctly understand the knowledge. Bacon’s inductive method is beneficial, but incomplete and leaves gaps.