[Coyoteman]

There are assumptions that science makes that are unfalsifiable.

It is hypotheses and theories that are required to be falsifiable, not assumptions.

According to Wiki:

An assumption according to Asimov is

something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.

Also, check out this essay:

Background Information—The Nature of Science

A brief excerpt:

So, what is science? Let us start by asking, what are the goals of science? Science, at its most basic level, is a search for explanations about the natural world. The goal of science is to find the best possible natural explanations for natural occurrences. Scientists seek to understand why the natural world is the way that it is, as well as how the natural world works. In order to do this, they use methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical rule used by scientists. This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations. This method of science assumes:

1) The natural world has an order to it—nature follows the same general rules throughout the universe
2) Natural phenomena have natural explanations
3) Humans can uncover these explanations, using critical and objective thinking, as well as careful investigation

Why do scientists use this methodology? Because it works! It has proven to be a reliable method of uncovering explanations for natural phenomena.

[dan1123]

Science, at its most basic level, is a search for explanations about the natural world.

Defining science as naturalism doesn't do away with the philosophical assumptions of science. How do you know naturalism is true? Is naturalism falsifiable?

Read the article in the link on #294 for a more in-depth look at the problems with the philosophy of science and defining science.

[mrjesse]

The goal of science is to find the best possible natural explanations for natural occurrences.

Just out of curiosity, if it is possible that God created the world, then why would it not be scientific to study the facts and see if they made sense in that setting? See below.

This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations.

Then why on earth do we have the big bang? That was a super natural explanation! According to Berkeley "Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy,.." That is beyond natural, or technically speaking, Super-natural!

So how come the big bang, which operated outside of the known laws of physics, is science, while the idea that God created everything is not science on account of it invoking a supernatural explanations?

-Jesse