Doesn't Kant acknowledge that Metaphysics is not the same type of Science as the other Sciences? — Corvus

Sort of, yes. He calls it “…a vain dialectical art….”, but because his version of metaphysics does incorporate synthetic a priori principles for its cognitions, they are to be treated scientifically under some conditions. The point being, that to treat metaphysical cognitions scientifically doesn’t mean metaphysics is a science.

But, yes, if it was a science it would be a different kind, that of a pure speculative nature, insofar as it is “…. more useful in preventing error than in the extension of knowledge…”.

Prolegomena, huh? What does that essay tell you, such that your argument for metaphysics as a science is shown by it?
————-

Metaphysics can, and that is what Kant laid out in CPR as the principle of Metaphysics as Science. — Corvus

I got to thinking about that, and I think you’ve come pretty close. What Kant laid out in CPR, are changes in the ways in which philosophers thought about metaphysics, and those changes were, not so much what would make metaphysics a proper science, but rather, why it hadn’t ever been taken as such. It does come down to principles, but it turns out that principles are not enough. They elevate metaphysics beyond the established doctrine of the time, insofar as it acts as sufficient ground for all other sciences, it is still left wanting as a science in itself.

The simplified objection for denominating metaphysics as a science in itself is in Prolegomena, sure, but the reason why not, remains in CPR, as well as the proper name under which a scientific version of metaphysics must be known.

The world is Divine Thought- Spinoza
The world is human thought- Kant
The world is Divine Will- Schopenhauer
The world is human will- Nietszche
The world is Divine Thought and Will- Hegel
The world is human thought and will- Heidegger

As usual Janus posts are filled with scorn, anger and hatred towards others, — Corvus

I don't hate anyone on these forums. I just call out poor quality, and especially 'Dunning Krueger' type postings when I see them. Mww seems to know Kant better than anyone else on these forums, and it just seemed ridiculous that an obvious neophyte like Corvus would presume to know Kant better.

I never said I was better than anyone.  Maybe that's what you feel for some strange reasons. My postings are not about claiming one is better than the other.  They are about the different ideas on the topics from what I read from the other sources.

If you cannot accept that, then you can stop reading my postings.  I already have been staying away from your postings.