Sorry, "assuming what you're trying to prove" is one of those phrases that comes as a bundle for me - I didn't mean to raise the issue of proof, but of justification as you say.

Your justification of induction seems to be "it has worked in the past" and I don't see how you're avoiding the fact that in order to use that as a justification, you need to start by assuming the principle of induction, so all you end up with is "In my experience, experience is a useful guide", which gets you nowhere.

I had been under the impression that the unfoundedness of the principle of induction was pretty uncontroversial in modern philosophy - am I mistaken?