What are the assumptions science makes about the nature of reality?

Randall L: What are the assumptions science makes about the nature of reality?
When I was in college, a friend had a natural science textbook that listed the numerous assumptions science makes about what exists and how it exists. (eg. Things have always behaved the same way they do now.) I’ve searched for this on the web, but can’t find the list. Does anyone have it or know where I can find it on the web? Thanks.

Answers and Views:

Answer by carl c
try this

Answer by fantabu1ous
Science is based on a few assumptions:

1) basic inductive reasoning. If a pattern seems to repeat enough times then it’s safe to assume that it will continue more or less identically forever. While doubting this assumption means doubting whether the sun will rise in the morning, it’s still unprovable.

2) Once inductions are made and accepted as natural laws (I understand that science regards such “laws” as hypotheses, so don’t get sidetracked), we assume that the natural laws (such as gravity, quantum physics etc, obviously certain natural laws are location specific) we observe in the local universe will be the same everywhere in space and time, even during events unwitnessed by any recorded person. Doubting this assumption can mean that gravity may reverse somewhere in the far, unobserved universe, or that some 4000 years ago the universe was created out of nothing. We have no evidence that either of these statements is false. Carbon dating and cosmic microwave radiation don’t prove that God didn’t create a world to appear billions of years old (creationists are so stupid! why do they argue against the science rather than allowing God to be complex and wonderful?).

3) perhaps most importantly, science values certain kinds of apprehension over others. Science does not value private gnosis, science does not value learning that comes from within (aside from its psychological value). I can’t really see why. Science values testability but it doesn’t accept evidence that can’t be demonstrated physically. Is there an a priori defense for this position?

Without these assumptions, science is nonsense, and yet these assumptions can never be proven or disproven. This is inconsistent with the value that most atheists give to falsifiability and the validity of science that derives from falsifiability. The third point raises the question of what constitutes falsifiability, what constitutes an acceptable test for a theory? I think these questions raise serious doubts about claims that atheists are using ‘reason’ and not faith to judge the world.

Answer by simply_made
I think you just described a “theory”. Where science will fill a void or an “unknown” with a probable explanation or patterned guess.

For example … science has not physically discovered all of the elements on the periodic table of elements. But according to the pattern of the before and after they are able to figure some properties and data of element that have not been discovered.

As far as science and existence of the universe … I suppose it can be understood that science does not support the existence of god and creation. But its not an assumption, it is a scientific opinion. Its not even a theory because there is no scientific basis of evidence or proof.

Hope this helps