There was lately a lot of talk about Kant in google/epistemology. Let me but in a bit and post an excerpt of my http://findgeorges.com/ Due to the general interest of the issue I post it to several lists.
============= KANT'S FOUNDATIONAL VIEW Kant's view may only be understood as foundation of the First Enlightenment, as ontological support of the First Scientific Revolution culminating in Newton's Model. We have seen that the latter led to paradoxes which Newton dodged with his "hypotheses non fingo" implying that physics does not deal with philosophical foundations. Kant could of course not follow him there, as his job consisted precisely in dealing with philosophical foundations. Consequently, he conceived paradoxical foundations of paradoxical science. With the advent of our Second Scientific Revolution, Kant's view lost all avail and keeps for us only historical and methodological interest. Especially the latter, showing how one can sincerely derive an ontology rigorously supporting concurrent science art and know-how. We follow this example endeavoring to conceive an ontology rigorously underlying Einstein's Second Scientific Revolution. Kant's obsoleteness is the best guarantee of his greatness. Philosophical views, unlike the scientific, don't follow a progress, but come and go like waves on a pond, apparently contradicting one another without these contradictions affecting them in any way, nor thwarting them from springing in again. There is little, if any sincere research of truth in established philosophy. A view ressurrects just because a clever guy picks it up for his thesis, knowing that it will flatter his supervisor and such "peers" as he knows will review it. Neo-platonisms, neo-phenomenalisms, neo-pata-physicalisms follow one another like waves on the ducks pond ot the Reeking Valley without leaving any traces. But Kant, leaving for obsoleteness left behind as deep traces as Newton whom he underlaid. KANT's AXIOMATIC Discussing Kant may follow one of two ways: 1.Learn to use his terminology inside of the Universe of discourse of his time. Only after having accomplished that would we be able to talk reasonably about "synthetic judgements a priori" and their role in "transcendental logic, or aesthetic". 2.Express his Weltanschaung in contemporary terms. We shall follow the second approach. Any theory is for us, today, axiomatic. What would we see as axioms and theorems of Kant's Weltanschauung? Axiom A1: necessary and universal science exists. Axiom A2: Science is created by inductive inference. Axiom A3: Only a priori inference is necessary and universal. Axiom A4: Induction a priori requires subjective representations a priori (categories) encompassing space and time. Axiom A5: Space and time are subjective representations a priori. (According to Kant we can imagine "empty space" without any "objects"[3] but we can only represent objects in space. The same holds for time.) Theorem T1, concluded from Axioms: Induction a priori is possible, necessary and universal. COMMENTS A1: At Kant's epoch the First Scientific Revolution had culminated in Newton's Model, whose rules and concepts were considered as exact, necessary and universal. Even the 19th century mechanistic Physics claimed those qualities. Only the Einstanian Second Scientific Revolution turned to consider science as fuzzy, relative and restricted, making A1 unacceptable for us. A2: We nearly agree with it: for us the inductive inference "verifies" rather than "creates" science. A3,A4,T1: We accept now only induction a posteriori. A5: Kant's main objective was to create the "Transcendental Logic" with induction a priori in its center. For this purpose A5 was a necessary addition to A1. Yet, "Empty space" and "objects in space" are clearly illusions of the "Naive View" (aka "Naive Realism"). We had to wait for the Extended Relativity to see the "empty space" abolished and replaced with P_Equivalence of SPACE and Field. [4] Transcendental Logic: Kant tried to create what appears to us as a "prototype" of Propositional Calculus. He failed due to missing mathematical and logical tools, mainly the Boole Algebra. He considered only statements, or, as we would say "operands", but neglected the operators. His 'Logic" was in fact just a classification of statements: -Statements analytical a priori which we would call deductive, -Statements synthetical a posteriori which we would call inductive, -Statements synthetical a priori supposed to support the induction a priori, unacceptable for us. [3] The term "object" does not exist in Physics. In the metalanguage it is multivalued and charged with noxious metaphysical connotations. We use it here in order not to diverge too far from Kant's terminology, as synonym of "event". [4] Phenomenal Equivalence (P-Equivalence): Association of Aspects of a Phenomenon (Field Density and SPACE curvature are P-Equivalent Aspects of the Phenomenon "Cosmos"). P-Equivalence is often confused with Causality. Its customary to say that "Field curves SPACE", which is false, as they are both "equally ranked" Aspects of a Phenomenon, coexisting but not causing one another. Similarly, continuous Field wave and discrete photons are P-Equivalent Aspects of the Phenomenon "Light". Einstein's lapsus Einstein: Concepts and Conceptual Systems get justified exclusively by their capacity to coordinate events. They cannot be justified in any other way. Therefore, it is, in my opinion, one of the most pernicious acts of Philosophers to have transferred some conceptual bases of Natural Science from the controllable domain of empiric adequacy into inaccessible height of the Necessary Apriori. This applies particularly to our concepts of time and space, which the Physicists - forced by the facts - had to descend from the Olympus of Apriori in order to repair them and make them usable. Einstein blamed Kant for having transferred some conceptual bases of Natural Science (mainly time and space) from the controllable domain of empiric adequacy into the inaccessible heights of the Necessary Apriori. Tatarkiewicz stood up for Kant who sincerely and rigorously derived his view from his concurrent physics. It's the Galilean Relativity which was based on absolute time and space, and Einstein should have more justly blamed Galileo and Newton. But, on the one hand, one does not see Einstein blaming his masters on whose shoulders he always declared to stand, and, on the other hand, they could hardly be blamed, as nothing in their time could possibly call in question the absolute time and space. Newton's and Kant's Paradoxes Newton's Paradoxes -First Paradox: Gravity attraction intervenes between such remote bodies as sun and earth which appears as Action at Distance violating the basic Mechanistic dogma of "billiard balls" acting locally on one another. -Second Paradox: Gravity attraction is determined by space (distance), but does not affect it in any way, which violates the Reciprocity Principle (Action / Reaction). Newton was perfectly aware of the Paradoxes which clearly called into question the Noumenalistic dogma of absolute space and its Mechanistic fabric of "billiard balls". Questioned about them he refused to be dragged into metaphysical speculations and answered with his famous "Hypotheses non fingo", implying that Science coordinates empiric data into consistent, predictable and verifiable Models, but refrains from explaining them in terms of Transcendency. (Closer to us, Dirac repeated it in similar situation with coarser terms: "Shut up and compute".) The Paradoxes were solved by Einstein's Relativity replacing Mechanistic dogma with the Phenomenal concept of Field and its P-Equivalence with SPACE, both expanding at invariant speed C as a continuous propagation of Local impulses. Einstein rated the solution of Newton's Paradoxes as his topmost achievement, because he admired Newton and considered him as his Master. We find it rather diverting that Newton's First Paradox may be seen in inverted order. His Gravity apparently acting at distance, in fact anticipated (extended) Locality by the implication of continuous Field. On the other hand, the pretended local action of hypothetical "billiard balls" meant actually Action at Distance, small or rather undefined distance of "balls" diameter, but distance anyhow. Kant's Paradoxes Kant has the historical merit of deriving Ontology of the First Enlightenment from empirically verifiable Science, rather than founding it, as it was the habit, in arbitrary, aprioristic speculations. He derived his system from the summit of his contemporary Science represented by Newton's Model with additional postulate of Science being exact, necessary and universal, thus absolute. Now, Newton's Model, as all Physics of his time was based upon metaphysical dogma of absolute time/space affine between time and space (lacking a common measure) and having the fabric of "billiard balls". These dogmatic foundations were in contradiction with Model's physical laws. Facing it, Newton dodged the issue with his famous "Hypotheses non fingo" implying that he restricted himself to Physics and dismissed Philosophy. Kant could of course not follow Newton in dismissing Philosophy, as it was his essential dedication. Consequently, and unlike Newton, he did endeavor to "make hypothesis", to conceive Foundations of Science consistent with Newton's Model. In doing so he chose the sincere, bona fide attitude of deriving Ontology from the bedrock premise of empirically verifiable physical Model. However, no matter how rigorous the inference, the conclusion is only as good as the premise: from a paradoxical Model Kant rigorously derived a paradoxical Ontology. 1.Having rightly banned noumena (Dinge an Sich) from human cognition, he created a Noumenalistic Ontology based on such noumena as absolute time and space, and other absolute categories of "Pure Reason", governing the Transcendency from the heights of the Olympus of A Priori. 2.His Synthetic (in fact inductive) Propositions A Priori reposed upon these aprioristic, dogmatic noumena in order to satisfy the postulate of exact, necessary, absolute Science. Now, as Kant was first to admit, scientific induction stems a posteriori from fuzzy Observations. He attempted unsuccessfully to replace it with the Synthetic Propositions A Priori destined but failing to prop up fuzzy observations with necessary and absolute categories of "Pure Reason". -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
