One of the most lasting and problematic challenges David Hume set forth regarding knowledge (particularly scientific knowledge) was his claim that causality (cause and effect) was epistemologically groundless. That is, Hume claimed that cause and effect "has no basis in experience." To the best of your ability, explain Hume's criticism of relying on cause and effect as a basis for knowledge (which has come to be known as "the problem of induction"). In other words, what is the problem with relying on cause and effect as a basis for making truth claims; after all, it is what all of the sciences do, so what could be problematic about it? Note: for this answer, you are expected to demonstrate an ability to understand an argument, and be able to articulate the key components of an argument. I am asking you to convince me that I should be skeptical of cause and effect.