Text/Jiang Jingfeng
It is often said that so-and-so theory is science. When someone questions these theories, which are called science, they immediately get into big trouble.
This is the paradox.
Since you think the theory is science, you should welcome questioning and criticism. Because science is falsifiable, it is not science that cannot be falsified, but religion. Questioning and criticizing is a way of falsifying.
Why is science falsifiable?
For what is called "science" has limitations, and cannot be absolutely correct and immutable truths.
Science, for the most part, is introduced by inductive reasoning. We know that inductive reasoning is individual to general reasoning, that is, reasoning from individual, special things to general conclusions or general laws.
Inductive reasoning is further divided into complete inductive reasoning and incomplete inductive reasoning. Complete inductive reasoning, the premise of which examines all individual objects of a certain type of thing, there is an inevitable connection between the conclusions reached and the premises, which is inevitable reasoning, and the conclusions are true and reliable.
Incomplete inductive reasoning, its premise does not exhaust all the objects of investigation, only a part of the objects are examined, and the conclusions drawn are beyond the scope of knowledge covered by the premises. Therefore, incomplete inductive reasoning is probabilistic reasoning, and its conclusions are not necessarily true and reliable. Scientific theories are usually derived from incomplete inductive reasoning.
For example, many years ago, an ornithologist examined the swans of European countries and found that they were all white, and many countries in Asia, and the swans were also white. Later, when he went to North America, he found that it was also white. So the expert deduced that the swans were all white.
Obviously, this expert did not and could not screen each swan one by one, and the inferences obtained were beyond the scope of his investigation, and there was no necessary connection between the conclusions obtained and the premises, it was probabilistic reasoning, and the conclusions drawn were not necessarily true, correct, and reliable.
Later, black swans were found in Australia. At this point, the conclusions previously considered scientific have been falsified, and human cognition of swans has taken a step forward.
For example, we are educated from an early age to naturally believe that the state is the product of class struggle and to regard it as a "scientific" theory of course.
If we look at it from a scientific point of view, we will find that the founder of this "classical" theory did not, and could not, travel through time and space to investigate the reasons for the birth of each country. However, it is mainly after consulting historical documents and examining the form of the transition from some primitive tribes in the era to the state, that is, he cannot draw complete inductive reasoning on the basis of examining the background of the emergence of all countries in history, but only on the basis of examining the process of the emergence of some countries. The conclusion that the state is an irreconcilable product of the class struggle is clearly beyond the scope of his investigation, and there is no necessary connection between the conclusions he has examined and the premises he has examined, and the conclusions can only be probabilistic.
Since it is incomplete inductive reasoning, the conclusions obtained may be imperfect, incomplete, or even untrue and wrong. This should allow people to question and criticize. Only in this way can this "classic" theory be completed, perfected, and truly become a classic.
Why do places like Europe disagree with the idea that class struggle gives rise to states?
This is not just because of the difference in "ideology", but more importantly, what kind of attitude to take towards science.
At the same time, reasoning not only has the possibility of distortion of premises, but also makes the mistake of reasoning illogical rules. Even if the premises are true, if the rules of reasoning are not followed, no conclusion will be drawn that is both true and correct.
All this determines that science can be wrong. It is precisely in the process of constantly discovering mistakes and constantly correcting them. Falsifiability is precisely the merit of science and the hallmark of science.
Science can be falsified, and science allows questioning. What cannot be falsified and unquestionable is religion, not science. Religion does not need proof, it does not need reasoning, but it depends on man's beliefs. Which religion you believe in, as long as it is not a cult, you can believe in him wholeheartedly.
A theory is science, and it should be questioned. To think of it as science and not to question it is to regard science as a religion. Secular theories have become religious doctrines that do not tolerate criticism and have caused great disasters to mankind in history. Mankind has experienced a desperate struggle to separate politics from religion and establish a civilized system.