Uncertainty of Science: In Regards to David Hume

In the previous post, I went into epistemological basis for where knowledge comes from and how our mind is formed.  I intentionally left out the major views on what mind is to keep the focus on epistemology but I do want to continue talking about how knowledge is gained and what we are able to gain from observational data: through inductive reasoning.  The below is part of a debate I had with a friend named Lance.  I've edited it so as to not be aggressively pointing fingers at the reader.

I would first like to source David Hume, who seems to have the ever looming presence in the world of science as he posed the question on the falsity of the belief we hold to be certain regarding observational studies, science. Although this wasn't his goal (similar to how Descartes wasn't trying to make people fall into solipsism), he doesn't successfully work his way out of this conclusion.  He proposes that we believe in the concept of causality (there is a cause and effect, or everything has a cause) out of habit and it is not a deductively held argument. It's a rather intuitive and seemingly true since if we see a chair on fire, we immediately assume something must have set it off and we often look for he cause.  However, Hume begs to differ.  Let’s say we put our hand above a fire and we feel pain. We seem to think that this gives us solid grounds to think fire causes pain and will cause pain in the future if we put our hand on it again. However, what are the hidden premises to support these suppositions? It is the premise that there is a causal relationship between the two: hand over fire and pain. It is also the supposition that the future will be like the past. However, that is not a deductive inference. For example, a newborn human mind, let’s say if Adam was possible, could not have reasoned his way, deductively to think that a source of warmth and light would consume him if he put his hand on it. He could not deductively reason his way to think that water he drinks for nourishment would drown him if he cannot get out of it. We know these to be true because we’ve experienced it. Hume calls these “matters of fact” and separates it from “relations of ideas” which goes something like, “all unmarried men are bachelors” or 5x2=10. Relations of ideas can be demonstrated using empirical arguments and are conceptually and by definition true. However, Hume goes on to argue that “every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause”. A deductive argument presents premises and can lead us to the conclusion based on it, however, science is not of this nature.