Earl: What's this I hear about your going around telling decent law abiding citizens and children that science is irrational?
Amy: A little twisted, Earl, but close enough to the truth. I claim that science and the scientific method are based on assumptions, and that all assumptions are not rational. Which may be different from `irrational'.
Earl: Hurmph! Science is the most rational thing in the world! Surely a philosopher as wise as you would know that. Why do you go around saying otherwise?
Amy: Do you have some time to talk about it?
Earl: I feel like a spider being lured onto a web. Lemme get another Latte. [he does.] Okay, let's hear it.
Amy: Okay, I'll lead you into it with questions.
Earl: Do what you like. This one will be easy! [grins obnoxiously.]
Amy: [unruffled by Earl's confidence] Okay. Let's take a rather uncontraversial example, like gravity. The science community (which I will refer to from now on as just "science") would like to claim that if you drop a rock in this coffee shop tomorrow, it will fall to the floor, unless it is otherwise supported. Isn't that right?
Earl: You philosophers always start with the most mundane questions.
Amy: Just so there's no confusion.
Earl: Yes, they would say that.
Amy: Right. Now, how do they know what will happen tomorrow when tomorrow isn't here yet?
Earl: It's gravity. Why would we think that the law of gravity should not be in effect tomorrow, when, as all the evidence shows, it has always been around?
Amy: Why should the scientists think that the law of gravity will be around tomorrow?
Earl: You're being silly. The law of gravity has always been there. It's irrational to think it will suddenly change without warning without good reason.
Amy: As with all physical laws, I assume.
Earl: Yes.
Amy: So the reason we think the rock will fall the same way tomorrow is because the physical laws will be the same tomorrow as they have been in the past.
Earl: Yes.
Amy: So the future will resemble the past.
Earl: Yes.
Amy: That's called the "uniformity principle." It's a fundamental assumption of science. There's no rational reason to believe it.
Earl: But of course there is! It's always been that way.
Amy: What do you mean?
Earl: I'll give you an example: In 1980, say, a scientist made a theory based on the experiments he did. Then, in the future, say in 1990, the physical laws stayed the same. The "uniformity principle" is a theory with substantial evidence.
Amy: So we want evidence of the uniformity principle. And as evidence you have a past event. You have many past events.
Earl: Yes.
Amy: Now why should those past events have anything to do with future events?
Earl: If things have been like that forever, then they won't change.
Amy: Do you see what you are doing? In order for past events to be indicative of the behavior of matter in future events, you need the uniformity principle.
Earl: Right..
Amy: So in order for past events to be indicative of future events in the case of finding evidence for the uniformity principle, you need the uniformity principle. So what you are saying is
1: events x, y, and z exhibited the uniformity principle
2: The future will resemble that past
Therefore 3: There is evidence of the uniformity principle.
As you can see, it's circular reasoning, which is not rational.
Earl: Oh dear. This is very disturbing.
Amy: It bothered me a lot when I understood it too. It's David Hume's "problem of induction." Very famous.
Earl: I can't finish my Latte.
Amy: In a nutshell:
The universe is not necessarily one in which the physical laws
stay the same over space and time.
It is no more rational to think that "the laws will not change" than to think that "they will."
Theory that is corroborated by experiment has a tacit assumption that the laws will stay the same over space and time. For example, if the laws completely changed every day, then experiments would tell us nothing about how the same experiments would behave in the future.
So experimentation makes no sense without the uniformity principle.
To find evidence of the uniformity principle, you need to invoke the uniformity princlple itself for the reasoning to make sense.
To cite your conclusion as a part of the argument is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.