No, says critical realism. The solution is two-dimensional, literally. Empirical realism is a popular school. Bhaskar calls these the intransitive and transitive dimensions. Critical realism attempts to avoid conflating the two.
Science can make use of obvious facts, intuition, and analogies.
While this would be disaster if our goal were prediction, it is absolutely necessary if we wish to break free of the constraints of the predictive mode. In this way, critical realism sets the philosophical foundation for a useful, new science. Now, many scientists deny that they are victims of the epistemic fallacy, but they need to keep careful watch. A Humean must furthermore equate an empirical law with a constant conjunction of events. It can take a lot of work to figure out how to manipulate the data into finding a suitable constant conjunction.