Bacon, creating laws

In Book 1 Bacon introduces a new way of interpreting nature. He believes that "the only hope is true induction," rather than syllogism. There are two ways of discovering truth according to the proposed "induction." The first way (he says, the way we currently use) describes how we make sense of things according to the laws that we create. The other way (he says, the "true" way that has yet to be utilized) suggests that we first gather information from the senses and "particulars" before making the laws. Bacon insists that the first method is wrong because it suggests that we assume things are the way they are due to an artificial principle that man generates. What would be a more accurate interpretation of nature would be if we made sense of what we learn first, create law second.

But is this first method wrong? How are we to create laws if we don't first establish what we understand? Perhaps these aren't so different. What say ye?