[chickenimprint]

See, there's the problem. You called it almost certainly false, but what are the criteria of truth?

Science uses induction as a measure, meaning it presupposes that we have faith in the proposition that something will happen again because it has happened in the past. That would be akin to claiming to be immortal, because every time someone died, it wasn't you. With a little additional information, such as the recognition that you are an animal and that most animals seem to have not been immortal in the past, a good hypothesis would be that you will die, but how can you be sure that you're not the first immortal one? It might seem silly, but how can we be certain that the entirety of physics in the universe is not milliseconds from unraveling, that we're not a metaphorical barrel at the crest of a waterfall without knowing?

In epistemology, only logical truths are certain, anything else is an attempt to put a confidence rating on a proposition, be it through science or religion. Neither can reach 100%, but both can certainly be 0%. There aren't even objective measures for such confidence ratings, statistical modelling is the best we have.

The scientific method explicitly excludes unfalsifiable claims from its purview. If you have ever argued with a religious person, you will realize how easily deflected the argument is, that there is no evidence for divine inspiration. You could mention billions of recorded scientific findings that point toward a material world without supernatural events and still be rebuked by "So what? That doesn't mean it's untrue. You can't disprove that it happened that one time."

I'm not saying that science is a pointless endeavor, just that it can never be an objective measure of truth.

[lisper]

> Science uses induction as a measure

No, it doesn't. This is a common misconception, but it is 100% wrong. Science is the business of finding the best explanations that account for all observations.

One of the consequences of this methodology is that it turns out that all known observable phenomena can be described by fairly simple mathematical laws that appear to remain constant over time. But science does not assume this.

[chickenimprint]

>Science is the business of finding the best explanations that account for all observations.

This is exactly what induction means. Even your wording is almost identical to that of the Wikipedia page on "Inductive reasoning".

> One of the consequences of this methodology is that it turns out that all known observable phenomena can be described by fairly simple mathematical laws. But science does not assume this.

I'm not sure you fully comprehend, it's much simpler. Science does presuppose that observations mean anything related to more general rules, otherwise what would be the point of observations, right? Otherwise all data would be equivalent to TV static and to build a house we would just hope it builds itself. The way you hedge your bets with phrases like "can be described by" and "appear to" makes me think you intuitively understand the limitations of science when it comes to capturing absolute truths, such as analytical a priori truths (e.g. all bachelors are unmarried), which are correct by definition.

[lisper]

> This is exactly what induction means.

No it isn't. You got it right the first time. Induction "presupposes that we have faith in the proposition that something will happen again because it has happened in the past". But that is wrong. Science does not presuppose this.

> Science does presuppose that observations mean anything related to more general rules

No, it does not. It observes that the world behaves according to general rules. It does not presuppose that it does.

[chickenimprint]

> You got it right the first time. No, I gave an example of inductive reasoning common in science. Induction means concluding from the particular to the general. So in this case we might have observed something happening in the past, induced it happens in all of time, deduced that future time is part of all time by definition, and finally concluded that it will happen in the future. Induction is not restricted to time, it can equally be a generalization over time or any circumstance really.

We don't check each and every room in the country to see if general relativity holds there, and then fall in despair once we realize it might have randomly stopped holding in one of them yesterday.

> No, it does not. It observes that the world behaves according to general rules. It does not presuppose that it does.

I'd like to see you explain how you can you observe a rule. Are you God? Can you see all of space and time and all possible dimensions? Science observes particulars and tries to formulate general rules based on these observations. If science would not use induction, any observation would be meaningless, because the exact circumstances the observation was carried out in would cease to exist the moment the observation was concluded.

Therefore, science is susceptible to the induction problem.

[lisper]

> I'd like to see you explain how you can you observe a rule.

You need to read what I say more closely. I did not say that science observes rules. I said that science seeks good explanations for observations, and it just so happens that the best explanations for how nature behaves turn out to look like rules.