If study of the past teaches us anything, it is that things change. A lot of things didn't, of course; one might argue that few of the more important things change.
Logically, you don't have any reason to believe that any particular thing will be the same in the future.
(In logic, if you assume A and arrive at a contradiction, then you have proven not-A. If you assume A and arrive at not-A, that is a contradiction, and proves not-A. [This is useful in Sudoku.] If you assume A and arrive at A, then you have proven nothing.)
So, the fact that some things are the same as before is no logical evidence that any particular thing will be the same in the future. The fact, though, that some things are different is logical evidence that any particular thing might be.
Still, most of us most of the time think that things will be the same unless there is good evidence that they will be different.
And, in the past, that has served us well.
what has served ua poorly in history, economic history in particular, is saying, "This time is different."
That is nearly the characteristic of modern bubbles. "This time, the price can only go in one direction, up." (Prices, in general, rise. If you make that claim for something whose price is rising very slowly, it is more likely to be true. The claim is usually made, however, for something whose price has spiralled upward comparatively recently. The price of gold can only go up in the future, but it was at 386 in 1996 and 280 in 1999.)
What convinces us that the sun will rise in the east on this date next year is merely that it has in the past. (Don't quote science to me; science is merely the compilation of all sorts of past experience held together with logic. It is still the past.)
Still, I'd be willing to bet on it.