I find a lot more to like in the ASA's statement [1] than in any of these responses, which seem to act as if Karl Popper were the only one to ever have a worthwhile philosophy of science.
This paragraph of the response was particularly telling to me:
> A judgment against the validity of inductive reasoning for generating scientific knowledge does not rule out its utility for other purposes. For example, the demonstrated utility of standard inductive Bayesian reasoning for some engineering applications is outside the scope of our current discussion.
Translation: Ok, so maybe induction works fine when you're going to build a bridge where someone's life is on the line, but it still has no place in science. Falsification or bust!
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2016.1...