# Introduction to Critical Rationalism

**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024
**Category:** Elliot Temple
**Tags:** bot, cf-article
**Created:** [March 28, 2025, 3:56pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024 "2025-03-28T15:56:05Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 38

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![actually\_thinking](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/actually_thinking/32/4826_2.png) [@actually\_thinking](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/actually_thinking)
#### Post date: [April 21, 2025, 7:03am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/38 "2025-04-21T07:03:27Z")

</div>

> [@Elliot](#):
>
> 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. I think it would be a good project for me to begin on, though. But, I don’t think there is anything that I or anyone else could argue that would give you or any other CR proponent absolute certainty that things will maintain their identities. The question is “is it reasonable to think that A will always be A?” Indeed, that will be impossible if there is no acknowledgment from CR that “A is A” just to begin with. Without an axiom it becomes circular and I’m not sure where to start. Just the concept of falsifiability seems to be unfalsifiable. But that would contradict itself. So, asking me to show how induction is correct is like me asking you to show how “falsifiability” can be falsified. I am not sure of the way to proceed from here, or even if there is a way.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024)._