Science requires the uniformity of nature

I appreciate the lengths to which my opponent went in explaining how science does not require induction. In so doing, he helped me realize that my first argument was needlessly specific. Like my opponent's rebuttal, my argument was focused on the means, but the real argument only cares about the ends.The goal of science is to generate predictive statements about nature, and both induction and falsification lead to that end. Induction starts with observation to derive universal truths which are inherently predictive. "All fire is hot," predicts that the next fire we encounter will be hot. Falsification on the other hand starts with the predictive statement "All fire is hot," then tests the hypothesis for failure with each encounter of fire.As gross an oversimplification as my example may be, it is no less true that falsificationism relies upon prediction, and I'm sure my opponent would agree. In his own words, "If there are more ways to falsify hypothesis A, for example, if it makes more precise predictions, then it is a better hypothesis than B, which makes less precise predictions." Indeed, a hypothesis is by definition a prediction: a guess about the behavior of nature in the future. So, although falsification seems to sidestep Hume's problem of induction, it does not escape the implications of prediction, which leads me to my revised argument.Revised Argument1. Predictive statements about nature require the uniformity of nature.2. Science makes predictive statements about nature.3. Therefore, science requires the uniformity of nature.1. Predictive statements about nature require the uniformity of nature.In order to predict nature, nature must be predictable. A nature that is not uniform is not foreseeable in any possible sense. It does not matter if the predictive statement about nature turns out to be true, for it is the predictive quality of the statement itself that assumes the uniformity of nature, not its validity.Using Con's own example, consider the hypothesis "all rabbits are white." This is a predictive statement since it predicts that the next rabbit we encounter will be white. It also assumes that rabbits will still be rabbits tomorrow instead of turnips and that whiteness is a property that will persist uniformly into the future. If whiteness and rabbit-ness will only exists today, what purpose is there to this prediction whatsoever? Moreover, if there is no value in this prediction, there is no value in any prediction.Even an obviously false prediction like "all unicorns have horns" presumes uniformity. The notion of unicorns, though imaginary, presumes that our brains will be able to think "unicorn" tomorrow in the same way that we think "unicorn" today. The same goes for the horn. Better yet, if nature is not uniform, then even if this statement is false today, it might be true tomorrow, then false again the day after. Thus, falsification will never end, even when a hypothesis is falsified.I submit that is necessary to conclude—due to the impossibility of the contrary—that this premise is true.2. Science makes predictive statements about nature.A hypothesis is a predictive statement about nature. It might be true or false, but it is predictive nonetheless. If the hypothesis is generation through induction, then its prediction of the future is based on observations of the past. If falsification is employed, then the hypothesis' prediction of the future is based on other known generalities. Either way, the hypothesis is beyond all doubt a predictive statement about nature.3. Therefore, science requires the uniformity of nature.The conclusion follows inescapably from the premises. If predictive statements require the uniformity of nature, then science, which relies on predictive statements, also requires the uniformity of nature.ConclusionThe new argument is agnostic to the means by which theories and hypotheses are acquired, whether by induction or falsification. Methodology is not the problem, it's the end goal. Just ask yourself, if the universe was not uniform, if things could pop in and out of existence, if properties might be here today then gone tomorrow, then what purpose would science serve at all? Knowledge cannot advance if there is nothing to build upon. If Con is correct, then we must begin at square one every second. You just discovered the gravitational acceleration of the earth? Well, you better do it again because it might be different.Con's position reduces to absurdity. Therefore, it is a very reasonable to affirm the resolution.