I raise the following six objections to Hume’s argument against inductions. (1) The faculty of reason and experience might jointly justify the conclusions of inductions. Accordingly, just because the conclusions of inductions are neither justified a priori nor a posteriori, it does not follow that they are not justified. (2) Inductions are required for the uniformity principle to be justified rather than the other way around. (3) It is self-defeating for Hume to use inductions to show that inductions are not justifiable. (4) The faculty of reason and experience might jointly justify the uniformity principle. Consequently, just because the uniformity principle is neither justified a priori nor a posteriori, it does not follow that it is not justified. (5) It is in principle impossible to construct an argument that would show that inductions are justified or unjustified. (6) Hume’s argument against inductions backfires on his positive account of why we make predictions.