Science is based on logic fallacy/s

Perhaps I unnecessarily complicated my argument which really consisted of two parts: 1.) Science is not based on logical fallacies because science does not deal with absolutes which is required for the logical fallacies proposed by Pro. 2.) The justification for the assumptions made by science is pragmatic in nature. Point 1 is what demonstrate Pro wrong and what Pro has ignored while Point 2 was unnecessary on my part and what Pro has now argued against. Lets examine the debate a little further. Pro claims that Con has agreed "that science is committing a logical fallacy". But a review of the round 1 arguments reveals this is not the case. Uniformity Pro misstates science stance on uniformity and in Pros misstatement is the straw man that attempts to construe science into committing the fallacy of composition. Pro uses the example: 1) All observed swans are white (This was true in some region of the world in the past) 2) Therefore all swans are white The above statement has two important characteristics for this debate: 1.) It commits the fallacy of composition. 2.) It is not a scientific view and therefore irrelevant to the debate As I stated in round 1, the scientific view is: 1.) All observed swans are white. 2.) Therefore, until we have evidence to the contrary, the most logical theory is that all swans are white The above statement has two important characteristics for this debate: 1.) It does not commit the logical fallacy of composition because it does not claim that all swans are white, it claims the most logical assumption that can be made given the information at hand is that all swans are white 2.) It is a scientific theory. I would as Pro to address this in the next round since it was overlooked previously. 2) Empiricism and the reliability of experience This was not addressed by pro in this round, so I assume we are in agreement that science is a frame work that attempts to make empiricism reliable while readily admitting that it never will be absolutely reliable. On this point we have answered pro's original question: But how do we know that experience (like the experience of observing those experiments) is its self reliable ? 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. 3) Falsifiability It appears we have agreement on falsifiability also. Pro's original argument was that "Science [is] built on a rule that its self says is not scientific" but we now both agree that of course the principle of falsifiability is a philosophical principle and not a scientific one. There is no logical fallacy in scientific theory being built on philosophical principles. Summary Con is at fault for unnecessarily clouding the debate with the talk of pragmatism. However, this does not excuse Pro for answering the refutation of its arguments. Statements of certainty are required to commit the logical fallacies Pro has suggested. Science does not make statements of certainty. The divide between claiming something likely true and something true is the divide between a logical theory and a logical fallacy. “If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” -Richard Feynman