The original point was that the fact that induction works as well as it does would be extremely confusing if there wasn’t regularity in the universe. Despite the inherent incompleteness of induction, claiming that induction isn’t practically useful is essentially equivalent to asserting the deduction is not practically useful.
I also don’t understand your comparison between falsification and induction. Falsifiability is a useful label for dividing pseudo-scientific predictions from scientific predictions, not a way of discovering new truth. Essentially all scientific predictions are inductive.
The original point was that the fact that induction works as well as it does would be extremely confusing if there wasn’t regularity in the universe. Despite the inherent incompleteness of induction, claiming that induction isn’t practically useful is essentially equivalent to asserting the deduction is not practically useful.
I also don’t understand your comparison between falsification and induction. Falsifiability is a useful label for dividing pseudo-scientific predictions from scientific predictions, not a way of discovering new truth. Essentially all scientific predictions are inductive.