>>13522645I wrote the post you're replying to.
Inductive strength is based simply on number of occurrences. So a billion consistent experiments would have extremely high inductive strength, whereas a single experiment would have extremely low inductive strength.
Again, inductive strength is not absolute certainty. Science can never claim to be 100% sure of something. The problem of induction and the assumption that nature behaves uniformly across space and time are heavily debated in the philosophy of science.
We accept this kind of reasoning largely on pragmatic grounds -- it's reliable enough in our everyday lives, and humans can't function without it. For instance, when you typed the word 'how', it didn't occur to you that nature may have changed in the last few seconds so that you're the only human who understands what 'how' means.
