silly in the sense of unnecessary. one can practice science, or hiking, without having to believe that the universe is entirely lawful, yes?
> Without some underlying organization, how could we
> exist, much less develop what predictive ability that
> we do have?
hence my second part: there is some proof that there the reason why our predictive ability is more or less successful and of utility. but its not conclusive (especially since science and math themselves provide interesting paradoxes). but what value does a belief in a completely lawful universe add (other than as a motivational tool) to the ability to do science, etc (in fact, the extreme platonism of godel seems to have driven him not to believe in various parts of the natural sciences, including the theory of evolution)?
--ravi