Popper came up with many refutations of induction. That made it hard to come up with a new one. But I managed it:
Deutsch, Popper, and Feynman aren't inductivists. I could add more people to this list, like me. So here we see a clear pattern of people not being inductivists. There's a bunch of data points with a certain thing in common (a person not being inductivist). Let's apply induction to this pattern. So we extrapolate the general trend: induction leads us to conclude against induction. Oh no, a contradiction! I guess we'll have to throw out induction.
Q: Your data set is incomplete. A: All data sets are incomplete.
Q: Your data set isn't random. A: No data sets are entirely random.
Q: I have an explanation of why your method of selecting data points leads to a misleading result. A: That's nice. I like explanations.
Q: Don't you care that I have a criticism of your argument? A: I said we should throw out induction. As you may know, I think we should use an explanation-focussed approach. I took your claim to have an explanation, and lack of claim to have induced anything, as agreement.
Q: But how am I supposed to object to your argument using only induction? Induction isn't a tool for criticizing invalid uses of induction. A: So you're saying induction cannot tell us which inductions are true or false. We need explanation to do that. So induction is useless without explanation, but explanation is not useless without induction.
Q: That doesn't prove induction is useless. A: Have you ever thought about how much of the work, in a supposed induction, is done by induction, and how much by explanation?
So you're saying induction cannot tell us which inductions are true or false. We need explanation to do that. So induction is useless without explanation, but explanation is not useless without induction.
There is no great dichotomy between induction and explanation. Induction is explanation. Look how often why appears in my article here.
I'm familiar with the literature (on both sides). I've written a bunch of stuff you haven't answered. And you haven't answered the literature. I see no signs of understanding in your claims. You haven't been saying the kinds of things someone would say if they understood the subject.