Science relies entirely on an induction principle that empiricism cannot prove

Evidence

If this principle is not true, every attempt to arrive at general scientific laws from particular observations is fallacious, and Hume’s scepticism is inescapable for an empiricist. The principle itself cannot, of course, without circularity, be inferred from observed uniformities, since it is required to justify any such inference. It must therefore be, or be deduced from, an independent principle not based upon experience. To this extent, Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a sufficient basis for science. — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2451

Categorization

• XREF: XREF connects to the role of induction in scientific epistemology. — connects to: Factual propositions cannot be sustained merely by citing negative evidence — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 902; Scientific rationalism shades into the very faith it claims to dismiss; Science justifies methods by success while ignoring domains where intersubjective certainty fails
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2451

Broader Connections

• Science justifies methods by success while ignoring domains where intersubjective certainty fails #expands (0.80)
• Factual propositions cannot be sustained merely by citing negative evidence #corroborates (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 902