One of the most fascinating projects for philosophers is to give a satisfactory account of our inductive practice (the so-called description project). In this paper, after revisiting Hume's skeptical challenge to the problem of induction, we will argue that Hume's argument does not undermine the reliability of induction but rather render it unjustifiable. In the first part of the paper, we will argue that Hume's argument rest on a false description of our inductive behavior. In the second part, we will appeal to Bayesian approach to deal with the problem of induction. In the light of Bayesian achievements, one can take a huge step towards getting the description project done.
)