Popper attempts to do away with induction. He does so by insisting that the only valid form of scientific inquiry is to refute provably false hypotheses. That l

Popper attempts to do away with induction. He does so by insisting that the only valid form of scientific inquiry is to refute provably false hypotheses. That leaves us with the vague notion of Occam's razor to find out which hypotheses we should go by. The focus is on rejecting false hypotheses, not on proving correct ones. Translated into statistics, this gives you p-values. To pretend they're not relying on induction, people test "the null hypothesis", hopping to statistically disprove it. My point is that, in the absence of another hypothesis, there are an infinite number of ways you can disprove the null hypothesis. In real science, the actual hypothesis is always lurking in the closet, so why not actually model it and compute likelihood ratio? There is actually a much more rigorous framework for epistemology, it's algorithmic complexity. While it's not practical to use (the most common version is uncomputable), it's an ideal that helps thinking about the scientific method.