No. No assumptions are made. Science is based on Bayesian probabilities.
"Does the scientist assume that reason will guide him to a correct understanding?
No. He knows it.
" Does the scientist assume the Law of Identity as you stated just a few paragraphs prior to this one?
No. He knows and understands it and chooses to believe it based on the logical consequences of not believing that it is absolutely true.
"I have no interest any longer in GABA or dopaminergic receptors or prostaglandin receptors....take it to mind and account for mind. What causes mind? The laws of physics and chemistry cannot account for mind or consciousness."
Why ask for an answer which you reject a priori? Mind is a machine that provides for the functions of mind. The machine is based on the physics of the world it exists in-whether you like it, or not.
Re: "This is ridiculous. You claim it has no meaning, therefore it has no meaning! Rubbish!
"So this is what you have? You call names, give silly definitions, claim elements and particles are sentient...and I am ridiculous.
Particles are sentient. They are observers, whether you like it, or not. If they are brutes, it's because they threaten your worldview. Notice that you left out what you said that my reply referred to. It was your logic I referred to as rubbish, not you.
"So you write a vacuous definition of the word faith."
No it's not vacuous, you just don't like it.
Take a careful look at what you say. Take a look at your series of tautologies.
Tell you what. I will let the reader of your post and my posts stand in stark contrast to each other.
It is hard to resist not commenting on your statement that "science is based on Bayesian probability". That is a remarkable statement. I will let it go at that. It is not important I rejoin such a statement. I will let the reader make an assessment. It is unsetteling to know that science, according to you, does not rely on logic.
Good luck.