Induction identifies patterns, deduction identifies conclusions. Both are valuable, but yes, you can trust deductions more. Deductive reasoning focuses on evaluating the validity of each premise. If the premises are true, the conclusion is true. It’s a strict logical path.
And yes, you believe conclusions based on inductive reasoning; however, it’s more of a trust but verify thing. Trust inductive reasoning until the pattern breaks. Believe the conclusions from inductive reasoning so long as the pattern holds up, which frequently just means we keep looking. In 30 Philosophers, I describe this middle viewpoint as the empiricist lens. The other two lenses are the believer and the skeptic.
The third major type of reasoning is abductive, which is really just a best guess. Guesses are okay, but geez, they always need follow up. I suggest you hold abductive conclusions with humility. For example, if your staying in a cabin in California, and you hear hooves outside, a reasonable guess is that there are horses outside. That’s abductive reasoning. But heck, it could be donkeys or even zebras, but you’re in California, so it’s more likely horses. However, do look. You have to. Sometimes you’re surprised by a few zebras.
Now, to be clear, even with inductive reasoning you’re making an educated guess. But this guess is stronger, more direct. You notice patterns from past direct observations and assume it will be the same when you look again. If the Sun has risen every day of your life, that’s a pretty strong pattern. Chances are it’s going to rise tomorrow.