I did not direct my comment at you and do not feel under any obligation to respond to your insulting postVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:36 amNoted your points above and I disagree with some of them. Noted you are not very familiar with Kant's philosophy and some of the nuance points of Hume.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:16 pmThat is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.
Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge.
Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding."
This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated.
Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.
My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.
Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem fro his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.
Run along