Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:11 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 6:24 am
Kant in fact did theorize from his 'armchair', if not how else, he was not into experiments nor emphasized on analyzing
a posteriori empirical evidences.
What many in scientific circles do not normally recognize is that most of any methodology they embrace had to begin from philosophy and 'arm chair' dialectic. So I agree that Kant too was this necessarily, as was even most theoretical physicists up to the end of the 'modern' era [the old guard of scientists before the approximate 1960s].
Agree.
That is why I had been insisting 'philosophy-proper' [in a range of degrees] overrides all human knowledge. i.e. it is 'meta' thus philosophy can be prefix to any subject, so we have the terms like "philosophy of this or that", and "philosophy of whatever".
"a posteriori" I believe originated as meaning "without posited (assumption)", where Postulates were assumed as 'posed' assumptions of the system of logic one uses. This might be of those who used "a-" to mean "without". Similarly, "a priori" or "apriori", means "without prior" state. So, in consideration of modern language, "aposteriori" is anything not assumed, but 'observed'. The 'apriori' statements were originally already based upon the postulates of the system, like the 'tautologies' but referenced anything one thought was logically self-evident. Yet this CAN and HAS led to many to presume God (or other religious concepts) as being self-evident.
Kant defined
a priori as,
A priori meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from Experience,
but from a Universal Rule, -- a Rule which is itself, however, borrowed by us from Experience. B1
In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori Knowledge,
not Knowledge independent of this or that Experience,
but Knowledge Absolutely Independent of all Experience. B2
Kant adopted the following basic distinction between a priori and a posteriori is stated as;
The distinction between a priori and a posteriori in the century before Kant was used to distinguish between modes of logical demonstration:
'When the mind reasons from Causes to Effects, the demonstration is called a priori;
when from Effects to Causes, the demonstration is called a posteriori' (Arnauld, 1662, p. 301).
Kant further dealt with a priori in terms of 'pure' or 'mixed'.
Note the definition for postulates;
Definitions state the characteristics peculiar to particular sciences; while
Postulates are statements of fact 'on the being of which depends the being of the fact inferred' (1941, 76b, 39).
So generally, a priori is without direct experience and a posteriori is based on direct experiences.
Philosophers define their own terms usually as it is appropriate to be sure the listener understands their perspective. But whether their own definitions align with the general consensus of philosophers is up to question. Charitably, I interpret Kant as arguing for one to judge reality from the subjective perspective of their senses (like science does now) but without concern to consensus. In this way, I agree. This is an issue that I have a hard time expressing among others who do not recognize that science (the institute) is based upon "sense" and has to respect the subjective perspective when attempting to promote science to those not formally educated.
Science presented as objective scientifically is ultimately intersubjective. For Popper all scientific truths are merely polished conjectures by subjects collectively in consensus.
Kant view of Science is that it based on sense and rationality combined but ultimately must subsequently be justified with empirical evidences to confirm whatever is claimed as true.
I take issue with most science forums because they oddly do not recognize that if they are to sincerely respect the ideals of science, they have to begin by respecting the subjective viewpoints of those they are appealing to rather than the arrogant expectation that people learn to embrace 'authorities' of the scientific instutions. Why should a skeptic of the institution of science first require believing in them in order to learn why one should believe in 'science'? It is hypocritically at odds to the logical ideals of science that one 'selling' science should demand many expectations of 'proof' that prerequires faith in anything one credits as 'authoritative' when this begs the question. In this way, ...and if this is what he actually argues for, I respect Kant's approach and would consider him rightfully a philosopher of science needing respectful notice.
To understand and accept scientific truths one must first understands its agreed implicit constitution, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] in consensus.
Whatever ideology individuals or groups of scientists or others may have, these ideologies, e.g. scientism, logical positivism, etc. have no significance to science-proper.
Kant as a philosopher of his time got into whatever subjects they can for the sake of knowledge.
Whatever scientific theories Kant speculated [armchair], Kant would have agreed they must comply with the requirements of the scientific FSK to be true i.e. posteriori empirical evidences but he was not interested in doing the empirical exercises.
Kant did more than just admire the heavens – he made several notable contributions to astronomy and cosmology before he descended the slippery slope into philosophy.
https://www.lindahall.org/immanuel-kant/