How come science use philosophy or that in essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists? How come you need philosophy to do knowledge?
You can call it whatever you wish.
The fact of the matter is, as I explained to you already, one needs to make the 3 basal assumptions in order to be able to operate in the universe.
YOU TOO assume that gravity works today in the exact same way as it did yesterday. You don't ponder the possibility that if you let go of your keys today, that they will shoot off into space instead of falling to earth.
When you design a spaceprobe that goes on a mission to a moon orbitting saturn, you assume that gravity there works the same as it does here. And in so doing, you calibrate the machinery of the probe accordingly. The mechanism to land the probe without damaging it, is literally dependend on very specific calculations involving, among other things, gravity - the force of which is in turn calculated based on the mass of the moon (and perhaps jupiter as it will like have some influence as well).
You do this, because you have
on other choice.
And lo and behold... if you do your calculations based on those basal assumptions - probes actually reach their destination and land safely, like Curiosity did on Mars.
If you don't do your calculations assuming that gravity is how we observe it to be here on
this planet,
then the mission fails and the probe crashes on the moon or it even misses its target entirely and gets lost in deep space. In fact, how would you even calculate it, in that case? Again we come to compulsory aspect of it:
you have no other choice.
There is no reason at all to assume gravity works differently on another planet.
The basal assumptions thus are first reasonable (and compulsory, as you have no other choice, as I explained). And on top of that: they actually work. As said, one HAS to assume the universe is knowable and unchanging (in terms of how the forces work etc). You can't build a single device without such assumption.
Any and all discoveries are completely useless if you assume that doing the same test over and over again will produce different results every time.
Luckily, the universe seems quite knowable and consistent enough so that we can learn about it. And when we assume such, we actually succeed in building workable technology.
So what's the problem, really? What is your actual objection, aside from semantic nonsense?
If you want it closer to home for you as an individual, then tackle a Boltzmann Brain. You know science so you know this or else google it.
Here is the strongly philosophical statement about that: The universe is knowable, because as the universe appears to you is how the universe is for knowledge and it is fair, because you are not a Boltzmann Brain. Then problem of what really real is? The answer is that real is psychology. It is subjective and what a humans needs to believe in it.
And therefor... what, exactly?
You can't know anything? Science is a waste of time?
You see, regardless of all your ranting about your various versions of "real" or "wrong" and "subjective bla-di-bla,...." ... it seems as if none of those "problems" are inhibiting us to build things like GPS satellites, space-probes, medicine, computers,..... ALL of which are literally dependend on the basal assumptions.
Sooo.... what's that about?
So what about a bet on that?
I'll bet you a bazillion dollars that anywhere in the universe, if you find yourself on an object with enough mass, gravity will be pulling you towards it with a force relative to its mass.
It is the assumption/presumption/hidden premise to you, that the universe is fair and natural
The assumption that the universe is consistent enough so that we can learn about it, is tested every single time you turn on a device, which is literally dependend on the universe being consistent enough. Every time you turn on the lights in your house, you completely expect the light to go on, because you expect electro-magnetism to work exactly like it worked yesterday and exactly like it worked when electricity was first discovered and then used to develop the lightbulb.
As a matter of fact...... you TRUST this SO MUCH that if the light doesn't happen to go on, you will completely assume at first that the light bulb is simply broken and needs changing.
If then again the light doesn't turn on, your first idea will be that the "new" bulb is broken as well.
If no electrical equipment at all works, you will assume that there is a problem with the electricity feed in your home. If the neighbours also don't have any electricity, you'ld consider it to be a local black out. You'll assume problems in the lines or at the provider.
AT NO POINT AT ALL will you EVER assume that electro magnetism suddenly stopped working the way it does, or changed somehow. Ever.
Don't pretend as if this isn't true.
The idea that the workings of electro-magnetism changed (and therefor, electrical equipment build for the "old way of working" would no longer function) is an idea that will NEVER cross your mind. Ever. Unless it is as a joke.
Methodological naturalism use the last one: The assumption in effect that the universe is fair and natural.
Which is an assumption that works and yields positive results.
ie: your computer, or whatever device you use to read this, only works because of that assumption.
note: i disagree with your wording, wich I find bizar and confusing. As noted, I put it as "the universe is consistent enough so that we can learn about it".
I cope differently than you
No, you don't. As explained above with the lightbulb.
If the light doesn't work in your house, then "electro magnetism changed" wouldn't even be the last resort idea if all else fails to get it to work again. It just wouldn't. You would not consider it, at any point, nore would you suggest it.
