I very much agree with Themopanator, in that mojosam’s answer is not philosophically rigorous and attempts to paint the sciencfic enterprise as having less a priori assumptions than it does. It seems to be an apologetic response rather than a philosophical response grounded in a professional understanding of the literature.

While there aren’t any completely agreed upon a priori presuppositions in science, the assumption of an external, natural, intelligible world is as universally agreed upon as anything in science.

It is sad that mojosam’s response is the most upvoted; it makes me think that this sub is visited more by those that hold to the new orthodoxy of scientism, which has become so widespread these days, wherein science is not only a useful tool for desicribing and developing models of nature and for creating new technologies, but also is assumed to represent the ontological and teleological nature of Being itself—quite an epistemological jump to say the least.