Science requires the uniformity of nature

Closing StatementThe resolution before us presents a difficult epistemological dilemma for my opponent, and while his argumentation regarding the nature of falsification is learned, he seems to be missing the point. The point is not that falsification operates as intended without the uniformity of nature, it's about the heavy implications of Con's thesis. If there is no uniformity of nature, there is no scientific knowledge to be gained whatsoever.After Con's latest argument, I am able to see precisely where my opponent's mistake lies: step 2 of falsificationism. As my opponent has said repeatedly, every hypothesis must be accompanied by a system of axioms with the following constraints per my opponent:"The axioms must not contradict themselves or each other, they must not contain any axiom deducible from the remaining axioms, they must be sufficient for the deduction of all statements belonging to the theory that is being axiomatized, and must not contain any unnecessary assumptions."This seems reasonable enough, so let's hypothesize once more that all rabbits are white. Among other things, the axioms must include the notion of a rabbit and the notion of color. In my earlier round, I stated that if nature was uniform, then rabbit-ness and color-ness cannot be relied upon. They could exist one second and not the next. So, is it reasonable to even include the axiom of a rabbit and the axiom of color without also presupposing the axiom that nature is uniform? Absolutely not, since the hypothesis relies on the ability to examine rabbits and color without having to re-falsify those notions every second, or millisecond, or picosecond.Consider how my opponent said statements like "rabbits might be tulips tomorrow" can be ignored because they are not falsifiable. This is simply untrue if nature is not uniform! Indeed, if the laws of nature are not consistent, then the hypothesis that "rabbits will be tulips tomorrow" is very much falsifiable. Moreover, if my opponent is going to be consistent with his thesis, he better take hypotheses like these seriously as scientific claims or he will not be doing science according to his own preferred scientific epistemology.In truth, however, no scientist would take such claims seriously because it is a waste of time because every scientist ultimately prefers to rely on the most fundamental of all axioms: the future will behave like the past. So while falsification doesn't require the uniformity of nature from a theoretical standpoint, scientists will always presuppose it, particularly in their axioms.In fact, any hypothesis whose axiom is another falsifiable hypothesis is making my case for me. As soon as one hypothesis axiomizes another, it is presupposing that the axiomized hypothesis will persist into the future. That is how science advances. We build upon previous knowledge. The computer I am using now is possible because engineers relied on the laws of electro physics persisting in to the future.Now, my opponent will insist that it's all okay because if electro physics is falsified, we'll just start over with new falsifiable theories. This would be a rather trite response to win a debate and would miss the implication. If nature is not uniform, science should start over every day, even if it just so happens not to change. My opponent doesn't realize that anytime falsificationism does not start over, it is presupposing nature is uniform and there is no need to start over. Every theory must be retested moment to moment. Of course, that doesn't happen.In closing you, the reader, are being asked to accept that science does not require the uniformity of nature even though the uniformity of nature will continue to be assumed in all scientific endeavors. My opponent wants you to accept his epistemology even though he will most assuredly not live it out in practice. He, and all scientists like him, will be a living contradiction to his own thesis, which I am confident I have reduced to absurdity.I thank both the readers and my opponent for their time and thoughtful consideration.