Traditionally it was regarded as impossible, for all sorts of reasons, to study the human soul by the method of science. Now, what's interesting to me is, precisely within those tendencies in science that tried to be naturalistic, that tried to defend science against religions, barbarism and so on. Precisely in those branches of science the same curious refusal to deal with the facts persisted, so that the question you raise seems to pose an overwhelming paradox to an investigator. There is every reason to suppose that this mental organ, human language, develops in accordance with its genetically determined characteristics, with some minor modifications that give one language or another, depending on experience. But than, one would say the same about any bodily organ as far as I can see.
Induction involves the extraction of information from certain inputs.
It involves real time, an initial state in which certain information is demonstrably absent, and a final state in which the information is demonstrably present. In between is something very like trial and error. The extent to which this trial and error is constrained by factors other than pure chance is determined by initial conditions. Furthermore, the extent to which induction is constrained by factors other than pure chance is precisely the extent to which it is not induction. There is no question but that the above definition strongly equates inductive processes with statistical processes.