I am just about to address O’Hear’s defence of induction in reply to Popper. But first a check on the problem. What is the point of mounting a defence of Popperism, or CR or whatever? Bearing in mind that the core of Popperism is criticism, so there can be no such thing as an uncritical follower of Popper, why spend so much time and effort giving the appearance of defending Popper’s ideas like a typical follower of Freud or Marx or any other True Belief?
Moreover, if good scientists and practical people proceed in a Popperian manner, that is, problem-solving with a mix of imagination, reason and observation, do they need a deep philosophical defence? Surely the good ideas will win out over the defective ideas by a process that approximates natural selection for the “fittest” and “best”.
I will finish this later but will put up the draft at this point in case people want to comment on these thoughts.