@HenningStrandin @davidpapineau I mean, like I said, I basically do agree ‘the problem of induction is a pseudo-problem, because we don't reason inductively in science’. I think attempts justify induction are a dead end, and it’s to Popper’s credit that he took that seriously & worked on alternatives

@davidpapineau (And it’s not like Popper didn’t write a whole bunch on auxiliary hypotheses and ad-hoc falsification as well...most of people’s concerns like this he raised himself and discussed, whether or not you agree with his resolutions)

@davidpapineau My general position is that all attempts to define scientific method ultimately fail, but Popper is generally more interesting and useful than most. Confirmation/inductive logics are among the most naive and, aesthetically, are gross 🤮

@davidpapineau Here’s the naive view of a well-known Bayesian statistician on induction and deduction, who believe Popper was basically correct. There’s certainly some naive philosophy bits, but the important thing to me is that it’s *interesting*:

@davidpapineau In terms of the screenshot of what I wrote, here’s the basic idea. You can tell me if it’s Popper or Bacon or whatever: