I suppose that there are unfalsifyable statements which might be falsifyable in the future.

We
can deduce it from history how in the past unscientific theories became tested and then proven
correct or replaced with other because of new inventions, new methods of testing, researching.
When people do not have enough equipment or knowledge to conduct an experiment, then it is clear
that their theory is not falsifyable. However, after some period of time, when new discoveries were
made, it emerges that we are able to eventually falsify this theory. hat means that in the future we
can find answers to such questions as !"oes the #niverse have an end$%. &eople may always
contemplate and give their hypothesis, but currently we may not test it or conduct experiments, as
far as the science is not so developed. I believe we may give answers to many questions of this
kind, as far as the world is full of curious researchers, technology is developing. &eople in the past
could not predict we will travel and explore the #niverse, walk on the 'oon, neither could they
think of any method testing their beliefs, like those of position of the (un and )arth. hey could
claim such things are unfalsifyable and beliefs are everything they can reach. *owadays we talk
about their statements as theories which emerged to be wrong. +ut what if 'iko,a- .opernik and
other astronomers had never been born$ We would still live and think about those cases without
certainty. &robably we would call it unfalsifyable, as we do about everything we cannot be sure.
herefore I think that we can not say surely that something will be possible in the future, neither
can we state that something will be impossible forever.
!/cademic work% in spite of its non0scientific feature, often involves tasks and activities
similar to those conducted by scientists. Historians, sociologists and psychologists must collect
some data, analyse problems to ascertain some principles, tendencies, patterns. hey are supposed
to give reasons of their theories, even they are not called !falsifyable%. hey conduct some
experiments, though without scientific precision. In science it is expected to base calculations and
experiments on setted theories and laws, but even artists must obey some principles there are
some established rules in music 1rhythm2, painting 1proportion2, drama. /ny other academic works
are expected to be done with some logic, reasonably, like interpreting a poem it involves research
of author3s biography, some knowledge, giving reasons for every statement. What is fascinating is
that two people can have different opinion and both can be right that differ humanities and
science, where such situation never happens.
)xperiments conducted by historian or psychologist are falsifyable, when causes and effects
of a fact are founded, or when their conclusions have form of logic sentence then we can say
whether it is true or false. here are issues that people usually do not connect with science, but they
can be studied by scientists for example such emotions and states as hope, fear, love stem from
some actions in human brain. We can not 1yet2 measure them with scrutiny and precision, but we
can see some relationship between psychic4 psychological aspects and physical reactions. However
we cannot think about humanities in the same way as we think about sciences. "omains like history
or psychology are always full of hesitancies and parallel hypothesis which can vary. here are
certain principles, but many extents are tolerated and I think we can not talk about mankind,
peoples3 emotion, thoughts, decision in other way. &eople do not behave like molecules or planets.
5ike /lbert )instein once said !wo things are infinite6 the universe and human stupidity7 and I3m
not sure about the the universe.% We may think about this quote with humour, but is it not so$ When
people, their history, psychology, religion is considered, we talk using abstract nouns and infinite
things 1which are understood and defined differently2, and this is the main difference between
humanities and science domains.