Ok, Newtonian physics. That was accepted for a long time because it was utterly, utterly consistent with all our evidence.
Until it wasn't, in some edge cases. And we adopted a new theory that explained things better.
My point was that the impossibility of induction is at the core of science. Science generally does things well because it accounts for this. I cited financial crashes as an example of what can happen if you don't account for induction.
No, the universe Newton described was falsified. In the Newtonian universe, information (including gravitation and electrical attraction) travelled instantly.
Kuhn talks about this concept quite a bit in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Relativity was not merely an expansion of the Newtonian explanation of the universe. It was a complete change of our understanding of how the universe worked, even though relativity reduces to the same equations as Newtonian mechanics at low velocities and low masses.
Until it wasn't, in some edge cases. And we adopted a new theory that explained things better.
My point was that the impossibility of induction is at the core of science. Science generally does things well because it accounts for this. I cited financial crashes as an example of what can happen if you don't account for induction.
What, exactly, are you disagreeing with?