The principle of causality

Hello Rabbi,
I read in your book The Science of Freedom that Hume claims that the principle of causality cannot be learned from any observation and that it is something that is intuitive to us but not a derivative of observation.
A friend of mine asked me – after all, we see that the one who kicks the ball moves the ball. From this we learned that there is a force exerted on objects that causes them to move and we built formulas that explain many phenomena throughout the physical world. Doesn’t learning from a particular incident and creating a rule that is correct in all the cases I encounter confirm that there is an explanation here that is correct and not speculative? In other words, a theory that explains many situations seemingly confirms its correctness. And if it is correct, it seemingly points back to the fact that kicking the ball is indeed the reason for its movement. Why isn’t it correct?