If you say that philosophy tells us that even the smallest observations we make require some belief about how the world looks, yes, that is an interesting assertion (though I feel philosophers make a much bigger deal out of it than what it's worth). I'm not arguing that.
But when you state "Everyone has to belief in something", that is just a trivial consequence of the above. We've defined 'belief' to be something that is inherent in the most trivial things we do in our life every single second of every single day. With that definition of belief, of course everyone necessarily believes.
At least from my view. From you view, as I now realize, "everyone has to belief in something" is a summary for the theory of knowledge, and thus not trivial at all.
> Its not about the laws changing, but quite literally the world the law is supposed to speak to.
I feel you're playing with the meaning of words like I feel philosophers tend to do, causing all kinds of misunderstandings. The laws of physics don't speak to the world; they try to describe the world. When I say that the laws don't change, what I mean is that the way the world itself works doesn't change.
> You could imagine another world where experiments yield very different laws, but it would be no less science, and no less a world.
I could, but that has nothing to do with the world we live, or what I do and don't believe in. I don't see how this is relevant at all.
