Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
Yeah that's the point I was trying to make.
That's fine, but I thought you said that in order to do science I have to assume things which are not falsifiable.

I don't have to assume this in order to do science. I only have to assume this when I make plans.

I can do science and have no idea or care whether or not what I'm doing will be repeatable. The act of repeating does not rely on a prediction that future repetitions will be the same. It only relies on today's repeat matching with the report of yesterday's.

To me, it is not foolish to be dubious whether or not there is enough in the past to presume it will remain... however... I don't walk out my 2nd story window when I leave my house out of lack in faith in the consistency in gravity.

So it's tricky. The assumption of consistency is inherent in human behavior, but it's not woven into the methodology or lessons of science. Even though science produces predictive sentences, which seems to imply a certain expectation of consistency... this expectation is an illusion because if there is a lack of consistency, then science will discard the inconsistent laws, making them no longer science.