Science is based on logic fallacy/s

I thank Con for their reply.1) UniformitarianismI think Con is downgrading what Uniformaitarianism says. Uniformaitarianism was defined as "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 "It is not a direct contradiction because Pro does not understand either science's view of uniformity nor Con's use of it so far. Pro is attempting to claim science believes uniformity is universal (literally). Instead, despite thinking it more likely than not that uniformity exists in most of space and time, science has clearly stated a few places where it thinks this is not true (like at a singularity)."If the universe doesn't operate by the same natural laws and processes everywhere then Uniformaitarianism is false.2) Empiricism and the reliability of experienceCon has sought to refute my arguments on the reliability of experience, by making the distinction between one observation and many observations as Con says "If an experience is reproducible in a different location, at a different time, and by a different people then the probability that the common experience (should the experiences turn out the same) was in error decreases. "There is a hidden assumption in the the more experience = less probability of error claim.The hidden assumption is that experience is generally reliable. This is easy to demonstrate cause if it was assumed that observation in of its self was NOT GENERALLY unreliable, then putting a together a bunch of generally unreliable observations would not lead to the conclusion that more observations = less probability of error claim.As stated before it is assumed that experience is generally reliable (whether it be one observation or many) because experience (in multiple observations) is shown to be generally reliable.3) Science and laws/concepts/principles Con says "Ohm's law, Gauss' law, Faraday's Law, Maxwell's Equations... to name a few of hundreds." There is a big difference between a "law/concept/explanation" etc and the physical phenomena that it seeks to explain. To claim for instance that faradays law cause it seeks to explain a physical phenomena means that the law its self is physical is clearly logically fallacious.ALL laws/concepts/principles have no physical properties. They seek to explain the physical, they are not themselves physical. Faradays law is no more physical than the law of falsifiability.4) FalsifiabilityFaradays law is regarded as "scientific" because as Con says "One can easily set up experiments that demonstrate/test any of the above laws or principles hence they are scientific"Now Con doesn't challenge that the law of falsifiable is in of its self unfalsifiable and thus according to its own rule its not "scientific". But Con merely retorts that the law is "philosophical", but you see the question wasn't if the law is philosophical/conceptual (all laws are) the question is, is the law of falsifiability "scientific" ? as scientific say for instance as faradays law ? The answer is no, cause faradays law is falsifiable, the law of falsifiaibliy is not falsifiable. Does trying to make a distinction between laws as "scientific" and "philosophical" get around this ? I don't think so, cause there is no real distinction, just a made up categorical distinction.Closing Argument1) Uniformitarianism is even proved by science in some cases to be false.2) That experience is generally reliable is assumed because it is assumed that experience (multiple observations) is reliable.3) The law of falsifiability is of its self not falsifiable thus according to its own standard, is not "scientific"All 3 above are foundations that science is built on. Thus science is built on a logic fallacy or logical fallacies.I ask a vote for the Pro.Notes - This was more of an exploratory debate for me, to throw some idea's around. So I thank Con for providing counter arguments so I can see how I can make my argument stronger in the future.