Science has shown remarkable capability of verification, prediction and use.
How is is this possible if it is only the appearance of external reality (phenomena), not the external reality itself (noumena)? — Arthur Rupel
Physicists with fat heads are saying this year that mathematics now can prove causation and not simply correlation. — Gregory
Statement 1: Kant in the Critique gave a solid argument here. Remove all awareness of an object (the thing itself) and something still exists, noumena. These are the external, independent of our minds.This is a one way track: from noumena to mind to its representations to us, phenomena. All science is based on phenomena, not the true external realities, noumena (not quite what Kant may have said).
Statement two: Science has shown remarkable capability of verification, prediction and use.
How is is this possible if it is only the appearance of external reality (phenomena), not the external reality itself (noumena)? — Arthur Rupel
By what standard do you say science is successful. — Gregory
Who's to say it's successful enough — Gregory
that there aren't alternate reasons for how they created what they did? — Gregory
I've never really understood this widespread detestation of physicists among philosophers. I've seen it in every philosophy forum I've been in. Whether you're interested in it or not, it's been extremely successful on its own terms. Complaining it doesn't operate differently seems no more sane to me than berating a spoon for not being a hammer. — Kenosha Kid
Awareness of the object is distinguished from noumena, which is the thing in itself, according to Kant. Kant was very concerned with questions regarding causality. — Mickey
A few scientists have a big dick and like to show it off. — darthbarracuda
It could be God or anything the human imagination can think of pulling the strings. Scientist think they understand matter, but can't prove that. Kant tried to defend regularities but it all fails. I think consciousness effects matter more than we know. Heidegger implies as much. This could explain how scientist make things. There i s no relation between sciences model and reality. They are wrong to think they can model reality anyway. Their statistics are flawed too. Something as basic as whether space-time push us into the chair, pulls us, or opens up to let it rest are still debated by scientists. Your senses can't feel the laws of nature, so there I no access to them even in they exist — Gregory
The science/philosophy pissing contest I'm not aware of. — Kenosha Kid
I think both Kant and Hawking would object to the notion that the models of science get us direct access to reality itself. Scientific models are good in so far as they allow us to make predictions. That does not allow us to say that science gives us an entirely, complete, adequate or satisfactory model of all of our experience of the world or of reality itself. — prothero
I had in mind the "new atheist" thing and counter-thing, which seemed to generate some pissing. — darthbarracuda
They say "we just need to change the math a little on that one", admitting that they are changing, not describing, nature, which may be indescribable — Gregory
Kant claimed that mathematics is synthetic, or 'synthetic a priori' judgment. This is a controversial point, and much of the controversy is about understanding what it even means. — Dan Langlois
what Kant might have made of Einstein's non-Euclidean geometry, — Dan Langlois
I am a fan of Kant...... — Dan Langlois
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.