Although inductive and analogical reasoning work, they work depending on some notion of similarity.
For example, the argument that "All swans observed have been black. The next swan we observe will be black" is considered to have inductive weight to it the more and more swans we observe. But what is a swan? Each and every "swan" is a different object. We just assign the word "swan" to them because all these objects have some notion of shared properties that conceptualize as a swan in our head. Those objects are similar in some sense.
With simple examples like these, it doesn't seem so intuitive that we do this, but with more complicated examples, it becomes more obvious. But given that similarity is fundamentally subjective and there is no reason to think it is a mind independent feature, how can we know for sure when our inductive inferences are reliable or not? In the case of swans atleast, one could argue that it is a "natural" kind, but what about kinds that don't seem natural? How can we use proper inductive references with these?