Hume, Kant and Bergson

Good afternoon!
David Hume argued that man never observes causality in principle, and therefore concluded that induction is nothing more than a thought process (like the famous example of the rooster thinking that his crowing brings the sun).
And it’s hard for me: 1- After all, Yom himself is an empiricist, so how does it work out if he says science is based on thinking and not on observation?
2- I don’t understand what he means, because even if the crowing of the rooster doesn’t bring the sun, there is still an ancient cause that brings both, and so then there is causation, but we just don’t know what it is (and yet we recognize the correlation)?
And here there are two options: either he means that there is a reason and we just don’t recognize the correct reason (or just correlation or statistics), and so K. Lee thinks it’s not true that we don’t see the truth, let alone that we don’t see the complete truth (after all, even if Newton’s physics is not correct at the resolution of the micro where Einstein’s physics exists, it still exists correctly in large objects) and it’s true that we don’t see the perfect reason but we still recognize part of it, or he means that there are no reasons for things at all and everything just happens for no reason?
3- If he means that there are no reasons for things, then how does science predict? Are they just theories of convenience and not of truth?
4- I understand that Kant said about this that we really do not see causality itself in the phenomenon, but only in the phenomenon. And here I do not understand, does he mean that all science is built only in the human world (and the description of physics is only a description of the world as it appears to the observer), and therefore how it works (and how can we answer like Berkeley that there really is no phenomenon, since the phenomenon itself has two parts: the physical observable, whether it exists or not, and the inductive process that occurs in the observer)? Or does he mean that we do not know how to describe how the phenomenon really looks, but nevertheless science is built on what works (which is nevertheless partially true)?
5- Does it follow from Yom’s words that there is no ‘truth’ but only a convenient observation, and so what created everything? Will he answer that there really is no primary cause, and so can it be said that all his words are true only with regard to a physical cause, or is that all?
6- Henri Bergson expanded on the fact that every theory begins with an intuition that a scientist has that he is trying to prove, and K. Lee, according to Yom, how does this work? And since it is only an a priori intuition that says nothing about reality (and since it itself came from an ancient observation, then the whole problem of induction falls away, since man recognizes the law of nature from observation and not from an a priori process)?
7- Question about Kant: According to Kant, it follows that there is no access to the naumena, and therefore why does the a priori have the status of truth, since it is a process in the phenomenon (and it does not matter whether the fact that one cannot attain the naumena is an advantage or a disadvantage)?
Is the intention of the AHN and the status of the a priori only truth in relation to the phenomenon?
Sorry for the length, I imagine that most of the questions make a false assumption, and I would be happy if the rabbi would recognize it (and if the rabbi doesn’t have the strength to do so, I would understand. I would only be happy if the rabbi wrote this and didn’t just give me an answer that doesn’t satisfy my assumptions).
Thank you very much!