What is the "pessimistic meta-induction," and why does it support intellectual humility?

The observation that most past scientific theories turned out to be false or incomplete — so by induction, our current best theories are probably not the final word either.

The argument looks back over the history of science: confidently-held theories (e.g. of physics, medicine, chemistry) were repeatedly overturned by later ones. If almost every previous generation's "established science" was eventually revised, it would be odd to assume our current theories have uniquely escaped that fate. This is the pessimistic meta-induction — induction about science's track record rather than about nature.

It doesn't mean "science is worthless"; it means hold present knowledge provisionally. Pairing it with the Socratic "I know that I know nothing," Budelacci uses it to ground intellectual humility: confidence proportioned to evidence, and a standing willingness to be proven wrong.