# Induction and Critical Rationalism **URL:** \ **Category:** Elliot Temple\ **Tags:** bot, cf-article\ **Created:** [May 28, 2025, 11:35am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/induction-and-critical-rationalism/2069 "2025-05-28T11:35:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 26
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2025, 5:31pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/induction-and-critical-rationalism/2069/26 "2025-06-15T17:31:56Z")
AT: > > > > It starts with experience of particular things and ends up with more generalized truths. AM: > > > What happens in between? What is the method? Feel free to point to some literature you agree with. AT: > > Abstraction. Induction. AM: > I guess you would point to IToE for abstraction, but do you have any details on induction? He already answered that negatively: > [@Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/38): > > > [@Introduction to Critical Rationalism](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/29): > > > > Has anyone written a clear, comprehensive, detailed, complete version of induction that you think is correct? I’d be particularly interested if it also showed a correct understanding of some of Popper’s criticisms and answered them. > > Not that I know of. Given this context, I find a lot of the discussion afterwards strange because it e.g. treats “induction” like an established, meaningful concept, not a pre-hypothesis where someone has some sort of idea or lead but hasn’t yet formed it into a specific hypothesis. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/induction-and-critical-rationalism/2069)._