Yes, it is quite hard - it took me about fifteen years to work out a position I'm comfortable defending in general terms, and several years after that I still don't have all the details tied down - but I think it's well worthwhile. Given the apparent strength of your conviction that induction is unjustifiable and the fact that the nature of induction seems to be key to your argument, getting a clear understanding of what you think counts as justification seems like a good move :-) Of the positions linked from that article, I probably agree most with foundationalism, but I think reformed epistemology has a point with its criticism that classical foundationalism has too narrow a set of criteria for what can count as a properly basic belief (while disagreeing with reformed epistemology on a lot of its other points, including its response to the Great Pumpkin Objection, which is basically the FSM under a different name AFAICS.) I don't pretend to have all the details tied down myself yet either, though.