Popper's Arguments Against Falsification

When seeking to prove a hypothesis using induction, there are two comprehensive claims to consider: the first is that hypotheses are confirmed by positive instances of universal generalizations, and the second is that if some observations confirm a claim, then they also confirm any logical consequences of that claim. These guidelines are essential to the theory of inductive reasoning, a widely disputed set of ideas which attempts to make broad generalizations based on specific observations of events. Some people, namely Karl Popper and supporters of his logic, argue that induction is never justified, while supporters of Thomas Bayes’ reasoning, appropriately referred to as Bayesians, propose the opposing view. As in most philosophical discussions,
One of the most famous instances in which the question of the validity of induction arises is in the raven paradox. Philosophers have debated for centuries whether it is possible to confirm the hypothesis that “all ravens are black” by observing positive instances of this claim or, in other words, by citing anything that is a “non-black non-raven” as support for the claim. Popper sees no logic in this argument, asserting that it is impossible to falsify the hypothesis that all ravens are black if one is not actively seeking non-black ravens. Merely identifying non-black non-raven objects, such as white shoes or green apples, serves only to eliminate said objects from our investigation, rendering them
The most popular example of his rationale is the issue of what it is that constitutes our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, as it has every day before. It is logically impossible to justify the assumption that the future will resemble the past using straightforward, deductive reasoning: we merely predict that the sun will rise again by presuming the uniformity of nature. Surely, it seems absurd to not trust that the sun will rise tomorrow, and this is why so many people readily support the theory of induction. The philosophical debate lies, however, not in how agreeable an argument is, but rather how logically sound it is. For this reason, Hume’s theory is effective in objecting to the basis of inductive reasoning; namely, we cannot be completely certain of the outcome of any event. Likewise, we cannot be confident that all ravens are black based solely on past experience with things that are non-black