Can Kant be proven wrong? With science?

You're welcome.

>That's a rebuttal to very specific criticism.
But it is the criticism that is general taken as the decisive blow to his metaphysical project. I mainly came to it from the perspective of the ontological foundations of mathematics, but if you look in any philosophy of maths textbook there will usually be a section on Kant's foundation of geometry and arithmetic correlated to space and time, and how this view is now untenable because of non-euclidean geometry.

In general, tastes just changed in the 20th century and no one cares for straight-up metaphysics (and especially idealism) anymore unless it's cloaked in continental language as part of a sociological project.

Most Kant's theories have been disproven empirically by physicists, neuroscientists (cf. Gadiss, 2003:22) and ophthalmologists.

>Everyone once in a while
I mean I'm not going to judge it purely on that but that is an inauspicious start.

I have a STEM master's degree but that doesn't mean that I agree with logical positivism. I think anyone with a vague interest in philosophy has to disagree, no one can seriously advocate an opinion like that in this day and age

>but if you look in any philosophy of maths textbook there will usually be a section on Kant's foundation of geometry and arithmetic correlated to space and time, and how this view is now untenable because of non-euclidean geometry.
How recent is this? I have never seen this, and as far as I was ever aware it's something I """"popularized"""" on Veeky Forums. So like if it's since 2010 it may be actual Veeky Forums influence on real life.

It's not an amazingly deep or clever thing to come up with though.

My beef is with the 'with science?' idiocy. Philosophy is argued with philosophy.

I mean, it's a blog for a popular philosophy podcast (admittedly a very good podcast, however). The guy is/was a graduate student in philosophy, although not some top academic. I'd like to see someone engage with the argument critically. It seems sound to me.

The first introductory text I used during my undergrad (Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics) was published 16 years ago and I'm quite certain it's in there (pic related).

Actually, they're talking about something different. The issue with Kant imo, and it's quite subtle, is his treatment of space and time as like a stage in itself. It's like something similar to ideal v material, there's a framework that matter exists within but doesn't affect. Part of the reason we have to deal with non-euclidean shit in science sometimes is that matter, space and time do affect one another tho, there is a space and time that isn't merely imposed by us on the world through interpretation.

I think there's like something at the heart of Kant like this that's wrong, and not just because science either. He makes big assumptions that seem reasonable enough, but how they aren't reasonable is quite hard to pin down.

any rationalist is debunked by any empiricist

I feel quite good that something I thought of as a teen in like 2005 was in a math textbook by Shapiro in 2000.

He's on the money in a sense with the idea that they are empirically observable being the issue, whereas the link in have missed that.

However, it's touched upon in partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/05/21/a-note-on-kants-conception-of-space-and-time/ but they make the mistake of assuming that Euclidean geometry itself is fundamentally intuitive when it isn't, it's just another paradigm that we accept en masse. I think Kant understood this though.

I can't find the video where Zizek debunks the idea that Derrideans have no ideology by using empiricism, but relevant.

>but they make the mistake of assuming that Euclidean geometry itself is fundamentally intuitive when it isn't, it's just another paradigm that we accept en masse.

100% agreed. I did a short paper on Poincare's constructivism during my undergrad and there's a point where he describes visual perception as in no way euclidean. It's really some sort of bounded 2D plane, merely interpreted as 3D euclidean space when considered alongside, for example, the nerve sensations we receive from tactile perception. That really struck a chord with me, and I wish I had the knowledge/dedication to hash that out in Kantian terms.

this dude is dumb. the problem for kant is that his argument for the ideality of space has as a premise the claim that we can know, a priori, that space is euclidean (it is our a priori understanding of euclidean geometry that kant takes as proof that space is also a priori and hence ideal). but science shows that we cannot know that a priori, because it is false--we know a posteriori that space is non-euclidean. so, kant's premise is false and his argument collapses. this blog post does nothing to address this problem. it seems to suggest that for kant the claim is merely that we intuit (or perceive) space in a euclidean fashion, but that is incorrect; kant makes a much stronger claim.

Not with science maybe.
Suppose the basis of deontological ethics, that the intention of an action is somehow the determining factor in its ethical implications.
Once actions are committed, they are part of history. We cannot bring about the past (M. Dummett) nor can we do anything to change it. Once an action has passed, intention no longer is of any relevance. If we intend to change the action, it does not matter, and if our intentions did not come about through the action, then we have perhaps made the world a worse place and that is subject for ethical concern.
Kant's deontology can only provide judgment of thought, before an action takes place. In essence Kant is only proposing a judgment of our judgments. In metaphysical terms, it is entirely of a noncorporeal nature and thusly has nothing to do with the physical reality we inhabit. Even if Kant is correct about his deontology, it has no practical bearing in reality and serves only to establish the concept of thoughtcrime.

>it is our a priori understanding of euclidean geometry that kant takes as proof that space is also a priori and hence ideal

No, it isn't. Where does he make that claim? Passage(s) and page number(s) please.

the third section of section 1 of the transcendental aesthetic:

> Geometry is a science which determines the properties of space synthetically, and yet a priori. What, then, must be our representation of space, in order that such a cognition of it may be possible? It must be originally intuition, for from a mere conception, no propositions can be deduced which go out beyond the conception, and yet this happens in geometry. (Introd. V.) But this intuition must be found in the mind a priori, that is, before any perception of objects, consequently must be pure, not empirical, intuition. For geometrical principles are always apodeictic, that is, united with the consciousness of their necessity, as: "Space has only three dimensions." But propositions of this kind cannot be empirical judgements, nor conclusions from them. (Introd. II.) Now, how can an external intuition anterior to objects themselves, and in which our conception of objects can be determined a priori, exist in the human mind? Obviously not otherwise than in so far as it has its seat in the subject only, as the formal capacity of the subject's being affected by objects, and thereby of obtaining immediate representation, that is, intuition; consequently, only as the form of the external sense in general.

> Thus it is only by means of our explanation that the possibility of geometry, as a synthetical science a priori, becomes comprehensible. Every mode of explanation which does not show us this possibility, although in appearance it may be similar to ours, can with the utmost certainty be distinguished from it by these marks.

in other words: geometry provides synthetic knowledge of space (that is, it concerns space itself and not mere concepts) that is a priori and necessary. it can only be a priori and necessary if it is ideal ('it has its seat in the subject only'). so, space is ideal.

science refutes the first premise--our knowledge of geometry is not synthetic, a priori and necessary, it is contingent and a posteriori.

Who is this

counterpoint; yes

Its funny too because physicists of the latter 20th century explicitly rejected positivism as philosophical nonsense that stood as an impediment to real science.

Synthesis: Maybe.

This is a weak attempt to save Kant. The author concludes that:

>All of this is a way of saying that the space of physics is not the same thing as the space of ordinary, every-day experience (the former is conceptual and a posteriori, the latter is intuitive and a priori). If non-Euclidean geometry is useful for physics and is better at modeling "space," this means not that Kant must revise his concept of intuition as being of Euclidean space

Now ofcourse, this is entirely against the letter of the views of Kant: Kant does not distinguish between a priori euclidian space (i.e. space as pure intuition) and some conceptual a posteriori non-euclidian space; how could he: THE TRUTH OF THE FORMER MUST PRECLUDE THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF THE LATTER.

>Philosophy is argued with philosophy.
But what are the philosophical reasons for that?

Start with the Greeks kid.

counterpoint; yes

You're right about Kant being wrong (see: ) but do notice that Kants arguments for the apriority of space do not depend upon his ideas of geometry being synthetic a priori

>Start with the Greeks kid.
What is the philosophical reason for starting with the Greeks?

>Kants arguments for the apriority of space do not depend upon his ideas of geometry being synthetic a priori

i disagree and the passages i quoted support my point. there are are other considerations in the first section on space in the aesthetic (the numbered paragraphs 1-4), but there is clearly an argument, in the section i quoted, from the synthetic, a priori and necessary nature of geometry to the ideality of space:

> Thus it is only by means of our explanation that the possibility of geometry, as a synthetical science a priori, becomes comprehensible.

it seems to be an abductive argument, or perhaps a transcendental argument, but he clearly thinks that the synthetic, a priori character of geometry can only be explained by the ideality of space and that this is a reason to think that space is ideal, since (he falsely believes) the synthetic, a priori character of geometry is obvious

it may be that he has other arguments (like 1-4 mentioned above) that survive the criticism

Not him

>Why argue philosophy with philosophy
Because central to philosophy is the study of logic and its use in rhetoric. Someone trained in philosophy is literally trained to argue. It is most effective to argue against philosophy with philosophy because without using philosophy you're just going to create a terrible argument. As for why not to use science as an argument, research logical positivism and its implications and it will be clear to you that it is fundamentally impossible to support the "science only" position.

>Why start with the Greeks
Because the history of philosophy is a long line of arguments and later philosophers argue for or against the Greeks and often reference the Greeks. It really will do you no good to read The Birth of Tragedy (Nietzsche) without learning a bit of Greek philosophy as well as Greek mythology and culture.

he kant

Yeah, in my school's philosophy program you also have to take extensive classes on history of philosophy, great literature from the classics to today, and a course on writing philosophy clearly and concisely. Great program

>because without using philosophy you're just going to create a terrible argument.
That's a terrible argument. You used no logic at all to make it, rather it is an assumption you make. Also, why is it a terrible argument?
> and it will be clear to you that it is fundamentally impossible to support the "science only" position.
You made the assumption that I would support a "science only" position. What is the philosphical reason for a "philosophy only" position?
>Great program
What is the philosophical reason that it is a great program?

Arguments without philosophy are bad arguments because philosophy includes the practice of logic. Without philosophy your argument would neither be sound nor valid and would be unacceptable, necessarily. Though you can use philosophy without having studied philosophy, creating decent arguments on your own, by doing so you are doing philosophy.

>Philosophy only
Because science makes use of inductive reasoning and therefore can never create absolute truth, whereas deductive reasoning in philosophy will necessarily create true conclusions, given true premises. It should therefore be preferred in any instance where the objective is to discern truth.

>Without philosophy your argument would neither be sound nor valid and would be unacceptable, necessarily.
No, that doesn't follow. It's like saying a broken clock always shows the wrong time.

No, it works.
Logic is a subfield of philosophy.
The idea of having a valid or sound argument is fundamentally rooted in the practice of logic.
Making use of logic is making use of a subfield of philosophy.
A subfield of philosophy is still part of the whole category of "philosophy".
A person making a valid or sound argument is, by definition, using logic.
If they are using logic then they are using philosophy.
Therefore anyone making a valid or sound argument is using philosophy.

>Arguments without philosophy are bad arguments because philosophy includes the practice of logic.
Your logic goes like this:
1) If it includes the practice of logic
2) It is not a bad argument
Who says that non-philosophy does not contain logic, what is the philosophical reason behind it?
> Without philosophy your argument would neither be sound nor valid and would be unacceptable, necessarily.
That is another assumption. What makes something neither sound nor valid nor acceptable? What is the logic behind it?
>Because science makes use of inductive reasoning
How did you came to the conclusion that non-philosophy does not make use of deductive reasoning?
>and therefore can never create absolute truth
What is the philosophical reason that there IS absolute truth?

No, you've strawmanned me. My argument is not that a logical argument is necessarily good, it is that an illogical argument is necessarily invalid as the validity of arguments is a concept which necessitates logic. Without logic "validity" would have no meaning. It does not follow that any logical argument is good, but it does follow that any illogical argument is invalid.

Things which are not specifically philosophy may make use of logic, but in doing so they are making use of philosophy as the former is a subfield of the latter.

A valid argument is one which follows proper logical form. It requires logic to have any meaning. Without logic, the concept of validity in arguments has literally no definition.

Non-philosophy may make use of deductive reasoning, but deductive reasoning is a function of logic. Making use of deductive reasoning requires logic, which is a subfield of philosophy, and as a result using deductive reasoning means that you're using philosophy.

If absolute truth doesn't exist, then you could claim literally anything and say that it's true. You could say, "Hitler won WWII and is currently the emperor of Canada" and you could claim that it's true. Without absolute truth there is no situation where any argument would be false. I hope you can see the problem.

>No, you've strawmanned me.
I do not claim to be a philosopher, I am a foolospher: I know that I know no philosphy.
>using deductive reasoning means that you're using philosophy.
Thus if deductive reasoning means that you're using philosophy, and if I am using science as a foundation for the deductive reasoning, why is it necessary to argue philosophy with philosophy other than that philosophy simply being deductive reasoning and using logic?
>If absolute truth doesn't exist
I think here we are not talking of the same "thing". I am not asking whatever there is ANY truth, I am asking what the philosophical reason for non-limited truth is.

>science as a foundation for deductive reasoning
The conclusions of science are fundamentally based in inductive reasoning, so the truth value of the premises that you use (e.g. "science says x" as a premise) would not be clear. As a result, the truth value of your overall conclusion would not be certain in a strictly deductive argument.

>Non-limited truth
This will help you
plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Science can't do anything.
>clearly and concisely.
Fucking Platonists.

Yes, with Schopenhauer however, not science. With Schopenhauer's corrections though, it's pretty rock solid, so you're still SOL and have to read all of them.

>plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
Why not? Have read several entries from Standford but not yet this one.
>The conclusions of science are fundamentally based in inductive reasoning
How did you come to the conclusion that this is true and did you use logic and deductive reasoning to come to this conclusion?

>How did you come to the conclusion that this is true and did you use logic and deductive reasoning to come to this conclusion?

i checked them all, then used deduction
fu socrates

>i checked them all, then used deduction
But how do you KNOW you checked them ALL?

You have to prove him right, first.

As it is, I always hold metaphysicians under suspicion - metaphysics being founded, after all, upon an unhealthy and unfounded distrust of our sensory experience as valid/accurate/etc.

Not even empirical science trust our individual sensory experience dumbass.

1) Wrong, or at least not universally right.

2) If they don't then they're wrong. The whole foundation of metaphysics can be shaken with one simple point - there is no extrasensory vantage point/perspective from which we can judge our senses to be an inadequate measure with which to judge the world. Our entire experience is either sensory, or rooted in the senses.

i dont need check them all anymore than i need to check whether each bachelor is unmarried u silly bugger

>i dont need check them all anymore than
user checks for the color of swans, concludes all swans are white
Suddenly Australia is discovered and there is black swans
What now?

>The whole foundation of metaphysics can be shaken with one simple point - there is no extrasensory vantage point/perspective from which we can judge our senses to be an inadequate measure with which to judge the world.

this cuts both ways lad; therefore this must mean that as long as you claim our senses *are* an adequate measure to judge the world, you claim that your sensory/cognitive apparatus represents the objective world accurately, which, of course, is a metaphysical claim

no (new) experience can ever contradict a synthetic judgment, so idgaf what user does, but a problem he has not

No, just a statement of fact as there is no way to prove otherwise.

Your point is akin to saying that atheism is a faith, when it's clearly the default. We have no means of determining whether or not there is a god.

>We have no means of determining whether or not there is a god.

which necessitates the intellectually honest to be agnostic concerning the existence of whatever gods may be

> Your point is akin to saying that atheism is a faith

not at all

>when it's clearly the default

irrelevant

abduction works, gratz

>which necessitates the intellectually honest to be agnostic concerning the existence of whatever gods may be

*agnostic atheism

>*agnostic atheism

only the epistemologically uninformed pleb wouldnt classify this as a contradictio in terminis

There's no contradiction. If you don't explicitly believe in a god or gods, you are by definition an atheist.

Agnosticism/gnosticism are claims of knowledge.

Atheism/theism/etc are claims of faith.

Fact is that agnostic atheism is the most intellectually honest/respectable position.

Just because there's no absolute truth doesn't mean that anything goes dipshit. Almost nobody claims that.

You cannot prove a framework to be wrong if it doesn't accept the premises of another framework, that is, if they both are not included in a bigger and unified framework. Proofs and refutations can only be about the claimed adequation of some theory with some theoretical framework, never about the adequation of a theory with "reality".

Plato is a faggot, but Diogenes was worse.

>A person making a valid or sound argument is, by definition, using logic.
No, you interpret it as logical, to assume they are using logic is a leap. Again, a broken clock is correct twice a day, and a monkey may write the complete works of Shakespeare on a typewriter etc etc.

This is in fact a much stronger argument than necessary since the goalposts have been moved really really far from
>Someone trained in philosophy is literally trained to argue.
Whereas now the argument seems to be "If you happen to successfully argue with philosophy then you're using philosophy!", with no sense of any training being necessary.

>Your point is akin to saying that atheism is a faith
>frogposting
It's true, the fedora neo-atheists are frogs now.

>Our entire experience is either sensory, or rooted in the senses.
Why?
It's not the default
>determining
No need, you are applying a bad ideology to humanity.

>Someone trained in philosophy is literally trained to argue.
Wrong.

>all those greentexts

fuck, this is not how you discuss philosophy.

>because muh academia sez so
suck a shaft m8

Did I ever mentioned academia? Those cucks never discuss anything.

The demand for order is inherently academic.

It's not really, you sound like a pol retard.

Einstein's own Hole Argument defeats spacetime substantivalism. Spacetime does not really have the geometrical structure attributed to it by general relativity. Just because we can describe spacetime in noneuclidean terms does not mean it's actually noneuclidean

What Kant meant by the a priori knowledge of space, is that the fact of spaceness is an inherent existence of the human mind, space is required necessity of human mind consciousness, a baby in its relation to its inner experience of its mind and awareness of objects or memory, unavoidably is observing space, for the conception of any objectness to occur, the mind having capacity of presenting spatiality is required, and a given fact of nature, this is how and why Kant was able to say, the knowledge of space is a priori knowledge, if the mind did not have its own built in natural time and space component mechanisms, than perception, consciousness would not be possible, we presume, furthermore I think it follows, that the exact built in mechanic nature of space and time the mind utilizes, is a non trivial factor in human awareness/experience/being, for instance I cannot in my mind at this very moment very detailably envision a thousand different people at once, we presume this is due to the inherent qualities of, not limited to, the factors of the minds mechanisms of producing time and space

>think that space is ideal,

What do you mean by this, what do you think space being ideal means?

There is only philosophy, there is only true and false. Science is a branch of philosophy. Anything science says or thinks, is its philosophy, if science says or thinks something false, it is untrue philosophy. If science is lacking thought, philosophy that is not that philosophy, can potentially help it be unlacking

I was having some fun asking retarded questions. But let's continue.
>there is only true and false.
In reality maybe, but in human knowledge there are false truth and maybe even true falses.

Also would agree with Taleb that sucker/nonsucker matters more as truth/false.

I am not dismissing philosophy: as long as it doesn't isolate itself from science and vice versa. Which unfortunately does happen.

Science is wrong, though. Philosophy should always be AGAINST that dogmatic garbage.

i can prove kant wrong with one simple number

5'0"

Why should there be the exception of philosophical dogma being fine?

I dislike certain tendencies of science as well. Such as the dogmatic believe that science and technology will solve everything.

So I want philosophy to engage with science, not be stuck in their own world and become dogmatic itself.

>In reality maybe, but in human knowledge there are false truth and maybe even true falses.

What are some examples?

>Also would agree with Taleb that sucker/nonsucker matters more as truth/false.

Lots of spooks detected. Extreme vague and general statements, not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I think it is false that I am drinking poison. I drink. I become terminally ill and right before I die, I realize, what I thought was true, was false.

I am a stranger in a foreign town and I have been walking for a while and very very hungry, and I approach a merchant, who says there are no other food merchants for miles and miles in every direction, his burgers are $1,000, and he has a sheet of paper and assures me the statistics of the sheet of paper were not only determined by the hidden hand of the market, but that the hand descended from the heavens and wrote the chart itself; I purchase the burger and begin to walk, and not more than 200 yards on my walk and eating burger, I see a burgerking, 5 burgers for $2.... mfwfml

perhaps sucker/non sucker depends on relative knowledge of true and false
>I am not dismissing philosophy: as long as it doesn't isolate itself from science and vice versa

The thing might be, there is, the philosophy/art/science of sailing, of cooking, of karate, of diamond cutting, of running, of bird watching, of tower building, of mountain climbing, of roofing, of theatre, of whittling, of hunting, etc.etc.

Philosophy, is consciousness itself, its relation to itself and the world: all possible meaningful/coherent thoughts, all possible understanding. All those areas listed are realms of human mindfulness, with their own areas of knowledge and understanding. What is called academic "philosophy" or the history of philosophy, or what philosophers who are not explicitly chef or carpenters or aquariumests, attempt to consider what all other branches of human thought and activity fail to consider, to consider how everything might fit together, to consider the natures behind all possible human pursuits and activities, therefore in total, the totality of possible human thought, is, the totality of possible philosophy.

Counterpoint: maybe not.

>Lots of spooks detected. Extreme vague and general statements, not necessarily mutually exclusive.

How about you apply this same criticism to all of your own nonsensical rambling that follows?

>How about you apply this same criticism to all of your own nonsensical rambling that follows?

that sucker/nonsucker matters more as truth/false.

Is what I called spooky, and then expressed examples why I though that. Waiting for an intelligent response.

Care to quote and highlight and express precisely what I said that was incorrect, or am I talking to an edgy shadow?

Philosophical dogma is bad as well.
>So I want philosophy to engage with science, not be stuck in their own world and become dogmatic itself.
You mean become dogmatic with it and jerk off to how EPIC human rights and SCIENTIFIC and SOCIAL PROGRESS is.

Hmmm...
Point: possibility of being [the case]
Counterpoint: possibility of not being [the case]
Previous point and counterpoint: being or not being [the case] (yes or no)
So synthesis is something like the possibility of the possibility of being the case.

If we take this through another iteration of course we then get
youtube.com/watch?v=rDGgUGBD-90

>that sucker/nonsucker matters more as truth/false.
In general, but hey I am not And the way you use spooky is a great warning flag.

>You mean become dogmatic with it and jerk off to how EPIC human rights and SCIENTIFIC and SOCIAL PROGRESS is.
I am talking of the attitude I see here on Veeky Forums often. That explanations can only be found in philosophy and literature.
On Veeky Forums you might have the opposite: literature and philosophy can hardly inform us because they are not science.

Then you have Veeky Forums which is actually the most mature, but full of younglings who only care about history.

You're not responding to the post there. He's saying don't be so dogmatic, but you want to respond to SCIENCE v LITERATURE or something like that.

>You're not responding to the post there.
I was aware. I just wanted to state my case again, and used his comment for that.