What do they mean by induction?

I’ve also found this aspect confusing: How can people claim that induction is not real when we have induction machines?

Sander Greenland argued that the controversy is semantic. Popper’s sense of the term is not shared.

…you may feel (as I do) that the claim that we never use ‘any argument based on repetition of instances’ is superficial and absurd, and will perhaps wonder (as I have) how Popper attracted so many devotees (and so many intelligent ones at that). There is, however, a reasonable explanation for Popper’s claim. It is this: Popper meant that we never use any argument based on observed repetition of instances that does not also involve a hypothesis that predicts both those repetitions and the unobserved instances of interest.

Once the language issues are resolved, what’s left are questions of probabilistic reasoning, and of course, the mystery of creativity and scientific discovery, whatever you call it. As you highlight, it doesn’t seem productive to quarrel about words.

I also found it illuminating that Popper didn’t doubt that induction machines could be successful within the specific domains for which they were designed, even if they’re necessarily limited to the “world” created by its architects.

Thanks for a great post!