Science is based on logic fallacy/s

I thank Con for their response. In the previous rounds I kept referring to Con as the Pro, hopefully this didn't confuse people too much. I Concede that all assumptions of science are "useful" I want to make this clear, because the debate is on whether science is built on logical fallacies. By me making this clear concession, Con does not have to waste time trying to justify the "usefulness" of science and the assumptions/principles its built on. 1) Uniformitarianism "In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe" Con says "You are right in that uniformity is an assumption made in science. It is not a logical fallacy because science admits that it is making an assumption on this point. " I remind Con that admitting an assumption has being made (and if that assumption is logic fallacious) the admission its self doesn't change that the assumption is logical fallacious in the first place. Con says "And as a point of clarification, science even admits that the universe doesn't operate in the same way, in all places, and at all times" So science does assumes uniformitarianism while admitting that the universe doesn't operate in the same way, in all places, and at all times" and thus refutes Uniformitarianism. How is this not a direct contradiction ? "In logic, the Principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis in Latin) is the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought. The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive" [1] 2) Empiricism and the reliability of experience Con says "Science tells us that we can never ultimately trust experience and must always leave it open to reinterpretation. On this point, Pro again attempted to pigeon hole science into offering certainty when all science offers is doubt." My argument is based that science is built on the foundation that experience is GENERALLY reliable not ABSOLUTELY reliable. I fully accept that science (and the scientific method that is a part of science) does not make the assumption that experience is absolutely reliable, but it is built on the assumption that experience is GENERALLY reliable. This assumption has nothing to back it up, other than its own assumption. Or another way of putting it, science justifies that experience is generally reliable because it has be shown in the past that experience is generally reliable. Consider this joke....... Person 1: I have a generally reliable memory Person 2: How do you know that ? Person 1: Because I took a memory test last week, and it the results said that my memory was generally reliable. But you see the problem here is, if Person 1 memory is not generally reliable, then maybe their memory of taking the test is incorrect, or maybe there memory of their test results is incorrect, and thus their whole justification for assuming they have a reliable memory falls apart. That's why you can't assume that thing is true of the thing that your trying to prove is true. Science assumes that experience is generally reliable because experience is generally reliable. "Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise" Science and laws/concepts/principles In order to justify the contradiction of science being built on principle of "Falsifiability" con says "but we now both agree that of course the principle of falsifiability is a philosophical principle and not a scientific one." Previously I pointed out to Con that all "laws/concepts/principles" are philosophical/conceptual in nature. Although Con agreed that the principle of falsifiability is philosophical Con had no rebuttal that all the other laws/principles of science are philosophical. I ask Pro to present just one law/concept/principles of science that is not philosophical/conceptual. 3) Falsifiability Con says "There is no logical fallacy in scientific theory being built on philosophical principles." I agree there isn't. But you see this doesn't give you or science a free pass to commit logical fallacies and just try and sweep those logical fallacies under the rug now does it ? As I asked before "So how is the principle of falsifiability its self falsifiable ? It isn't, as such according to its own rule, it should not be regarded as a scientific." Science claims that anything that is not falsifiable is not "scientific", yet is built on the concept of falsifiability which in of its self is not falsifiable thus according to its own standard is not "scientific". But science doesn't hold its self to its own rule. This is just special pleading or in lay mans terms not playing by your own rules. "Special Pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules" [2] I look forward to Cons response. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://rationalwiki.org...