I suppose even in pure math, if you postulate a set of axioms, then proceed to to prove some theorems, you're still at risk of someone providing something like

I suppose even in pure math, if you postulate a set of axioms, then proceed to to prove some theorems, you're still at risk of someone providing something like a counter-example showing that your axioms are not consistent, and that not all of them can be true at the same time. Meaning that even if the inductive logic is 100% correct, the theory can be incorrect due to using mutually exclusive (in some non-obvious way) axioms.