Trigger words: scientists (5)
Indicator sentences: The only approach I can think of to change your view is to examine what you mean by "scientists".
Negotiation parts: While the overall scientific community would respond as you say, undoubtedly there are many scientists who wouldn't - either because they lack the mental flexibility to rethink their world, or they have a vested interest in the status quo. Now, I think this would be a small percentage overall, but certainly not ALL scientists would behave "correctly". Originally, I was going to title my CMV as "scientists don't have to assume the uniformity of nature" but I wasn't sure how I would argue that, but the way I did title it does make it sound like a generalization saying that there aren't scientists who do it wrong. The fact that there could be scientists that do it wrong is reason enough for this. ∆
Trigger words: assume (2)
Indicator sentences: This statement makes me think my definition of assume is probably wrong.
Negotiation parts: I'm using assume to mean a commitment to a particular answer as being the only possible answer and a denial of anything that would suggest otherwise. The first definition of assume when I Google searched "definition assume" suppose to be the case, without proof. Typically when someone "assumes" a fact, it is because proving it outright is either impossible or difficult or time consuming. They are usually going to follow the consequences until something is observed which doesn't make sense. When science makes observations that do not match the assumptions they have about the world, the assumptions are often changed. For a long time it was assumed that the sun and planets orbit the earth, until people began to track the positions of those objects in the sky and noticed that their behavior didn't match the assumed behavior. What I'm saying is you are probably correct about your misunderstanding. It could be a regional/dialect thing; the google dictionary says "suppose to be the case, without proof." which doesn't really say one way or another; but I know that when I typically use the word, it's after I realize that I was mistaken about something because I assumed incorrectly, and when I do that I don't go on thinking that must be the case. But I do think that you and I have differing opinions of what it means to assume. As far as Science is concerned (as far as I can tell after googling "assumption scientific definition"), an assumption is considered a statement that is accepted without evidence; so there isn't any hard evidence or mathematical law that states that nature must be uniform, but as far as we can tell it is, so we accept it as a given when designing experiment models. It hasn't ever really been proven wrong, but you can't really prove that there will never be variation from that uniformity, just that there is a high likelihood based on past observation that there never has been variation.
Trigger words: assume assuming assumed
Indicator sentences: It appears here that your definition of "assume" is different from what science uses.
Negotiation parts: In the comments, you clarified that your definition of "assume" is: [STA-CITE]>a commitment to a particular answer as being the only possible answer and a denial of anything that would suggest otherwise. [END-CITE]However, in the scientific world, the word "assume" essentially means "educated guess."
Trigger words: uniform
Indicator sentences: What exactly do you mean by uniformity?