I don't know about nauralism being coextensive with science, but explain how science can be done without assuming that phenomena are consistent over time.
"I don't know about nauralism being coextensive with science, but explain how science can be done without assuming that phenomena are consistent over time."
The problem is that there is a difference between experimental science and forensic science. Doing science doesn't require any sort of assumptions -- if something changes over time your experimentation will tell it. However, looking back, there is no way to tell if, historically, things have changed without experimentation. Therefore, there is no way to look back without pre-assuming a whole lot of what is plausible.
Normally, science tests what is plausible, and works from data. But when looking back, what is plausible is pre-assumed, and cannot be tested to the degree that it can in the present.
Sometimes these things can be tested, but ultimately even these tests still import a whole lot of plausibility assumptions in their testing.