Isn't this notion of 'implosion' kind of modernist? If I am hearing you right, it looks at the standards of modernism and modernism's inability to meet them and judges modernism by its own standards as a failure. But why accept those standards as the right ones by which to judge modernism?
Modernisms in general have done wonderful things for us, and will continue to do so. Contrary to the bias of modernism itself, an approach does not have to be either rigorously true or worthless. And modernism can coexist with its competitors and retain its value.
In fact, despite having failed, modernism is still so healthy that we are not really able to truly escape it. In fact your question doesn't escape it. The idea of an inductive argument that has actual effects relies upon just the kind of essentialism endemic to modernism.
Essential modernism does not exist, so things 'with the essence of modernism' do not have to do anything in particular.
But in general, no matter how well-founded it seems to be, you can't assume your rule creates events, provable or not. Rules don't do that, because they aren't universal laws of nature. The idea of that kind of rule has already 'imploded'.
I am not sure what that has to do with the notion of responding. Trends are real. They are worth looking for. If you have noted a trend, you don't have to look for instances, but it is reasonable. There are likely to be exceptions because universal laws of nature basically are not a thing. But that does not mean you have to argue with the trend, either. Neither of these things is obligatory, whether or not the trend is real or whether it has a traceable cause.