In common speech the problem goes something like this: When it is raining outside the streets will be wet; The streets are wet, therefore it is raining outside. This is a fallacy. The streets could be wet for an infinite number of reasons.
No, they could not, in fact, be wet for an infinite number of reasons, as in the concern of infinity, VERY FEW POTENTIAL OUTCOMES, EVEN AMONGST THOSE OF TRACE POSSIBILITY, WILL RESULT IN A WET STREET.
Once the conditional variables of a matter are accounted for to at least an operable degree, probabilities can then be determined and intuited even if only in preliminary manners. For example, a very probable and immediate cause of a wet street could, in fact, be that it is raining outside. How might we test to determine whether or not it's raining outside? We could look; that would be easy. What is it on the street that's making it wet? If it is or isn't water, we've further isolated both probable and potential causes one way or another. If it's water...is it raining on the street? If yes, wet street probably explained. If it is raining, has the rainfall been sufficient to saturate the street surface as much as it has, or are there other, potentially additional causes synergizing in this effect behind the obvious contributing environmental factor?
On the other hand, if the street is wet and it is not raining, you might have to look elsewhere for explanations. Could they be quite numerous? Potentially so. Infinite?
No. Under no uncertain terms, no. Your statement is made invalid by its exaggeration.
Moreover, you clearly don't understand that inductive reasoning is a participle of empirical data acquisition, not the only. You're also completely ignoring the role of falsifiability. Given your quotation of Karl Popper, you ought to know a little something about his role in the popularization of the term as with the establishment of its concepts. Yet, you didn't mention it in your cherry-picked attempt at faux-empiricism.
What ARE you trying to achieve here, I am left to wonder? Are you so poor at reasoning that sloppy thinking is the best you can manage, which you then defend with the aegis of the insecure with some of the most feeble and outlandish attempts at justification you could possibly scrape off the walls?
Quit finding crap on Google and trying to represent it if you don't understand the material beyond whatever buzzwords your skimming bring to your attention. You seem to possibly have a functioning brain to organize such information as you do; please, go the rest of the way in using it by actually informing yourself upon the topics you wish to address.
Seriously, I'm not urging you to change your mind and agree with me on whatever my own views are, but what you're doing here and in other threads is just shameful; it's lazy, selective, special-pleading foolery, and I'd presume you would like to not, in fact, be a laughing stock.
If you would, well...carry on as you have been.