Falsifiability

In today's second class of Socio-constructive Science & Technology I, we argued on "falsifiability". This idea appeared as a substitute of logical positivism to define science better. Logical positivism had mainly two problems. One is so called as "too early generalization". Based on logical positivism, we get scientific knowledge by inductive reasoning over phenomena. However, we cannot define how much phenomena we should prove a common rule is valid on. The other is we can't guarantee the justice of inductive reasoning as a method for inducing proper rules. This reasoning based on "principle of uniformity of nature", that is a hypothesis that natural phenomena don't occur at random, they should have some orders, that is, in the same condition same phenomena happen. However, we cannot prove this principle. Considering the circumstances mentioned above, logical positivism is insufficient for definition of scientific knowledge. On the other hand, falsifiability does not refer to whether or not a knowledge can be proved its rightness, rather judge a knowledge is scientific or not by whether or not it has a room for accepting counter evidences. For example, the hypothesis of "all living things have evolved" can not be contradicted, on the other hand, "all living things have evolved by natural selection" is falsifiable because we can search a creature which has evolved by another way except for natural selection. However falsifiability has also a problem that it is difficult to prove falsifiability because we can add as many ad-hoc hypotheses which protect main assertion from contradictions as we like. After all, scientific knowledge cannot be free from human works, in other word, scientific knowledge is constructed by ourselves, not exist in natural.