An inference can be derived from observation alone, but all observation is always already interpretive. Anything that could count as an event is primo...
There may indeed be physical necessity. For all we know it could be physically impossible that things could have been different. But logical necessity...
Yes I agree, you can think inductively and abductively based on accumulated past experience. However, logical necessity is not inductive or abductive ...
"Logical necessity" in this context implies that for the laws to be different would be a logical contradiction. And yet this is not so. which is why I...
The distinction is between what can be known only contingently on the basis of ongoing events and what can be known as necessary based on reflection a...
Would it be possible, though, to unpack "the philosophical implications of physics", without understanding "the debates going on within physics"? (Thi...
'Noumenal' is a polemical distinction from 'phenomenal', so I don't know what you are trying to say here, unless it is just the (unquestionable?) trui...
I'm not clear on what you're saying; can you explain? I wasn't asserting the idea of strict determinism, just outlining it, and pointing out that ther...
That's true of me also; but I think it is good to remain open to the possibility. In my view, "metaphysics proper" would not be some set of true propo...
So, the idea here would be that of intellectual intuition; that in virtue of being the noumenal we can somehow directly know it's nature. The possibil...
To go back to the beginning of this thread after some derailment, the idea of physical necessity such that given exactly the same causal conditions, e...
If the ball lands outside the designated lines, it is called out and the player who last hit the ball loses the point. There is nothing more to unders...
Irrelevant. I acknowledged that the rules are established by consensus. If can describe the rules then I understand them; I don't have to play tennis,...
Convention establishes rules. It also establishes language, which enables me to understand the rules, without having to implement them. If I couldn't ...
If it is the agreement of others that shows what the rules are then my having watched many games and finding an infallible consensus about the way the...
The same way I know I understand anything; I experience a state of comprehension. Perhaps nothing I say could convince you about that; but that's fine...
That's a stupid question, Isaac. It's obvious, for example think about tennis. The rules of tennis are perfectly comprehensible to me, and yet I haven...
Incorrect; you would first have to understand a rule in order to be able to demonstrate that understanding. You are committing the same conflation as ...
It seems you are conflating understanding a rule with showing that you understand a rule. One could understand a rule without ever implementing it. If...
Obviously there are no things-as-perceived absent perceivers; does it logically follow that there are no things at all? You haven't answered the quest...
Right, but all that seems to be saying is that intelligible experience itself, and not merely rightness, usefulness and even indispensability for our ...
Kant was not a realist about causation. As I understand it Hume claims that on account of "constant conjunctions" of events we come to habitually assu...
When you say this it shows the misunderstanding I'm talking about, Scientists don't imagine that observed predictions prove hypotheses, so that is not...
You misunderstand the nature of science; hypotheses are never proven, if by proven you mean rendered absolutely certain. Hypotheses, even established ...
I agree; all we have are various ideas about what we are able to imagine as possibilities. We can say the whole question is irrelevant, incoherent or ...
Kant would agree with you that we have knowledge of the empirical, and analytic and/ or synthetic a priori knowledge in the form of logic and mathemat...
But does math really "see into her secrets"? We seem to be able to model things mathematically and make extraordinarily accurate predictions. We accep...
Sure, you might say that for phenomenology a thing is the sum of all its possible appearances, and nothing beyond that. On the other hand, it is alway...
Science is accepted because it works. We can make observations and measure and model the world as it appears to us. We can think in terms of causation...
I don't know whether you meant to say "is not presupposed, but is a derived abstraction". Traditional metaphysics certainly thought in terms of (purpo...
Is such knowledge possible without mathematical experience? Right, I misread anthropocentric as anthropomorphic. In any case my point stands re anthro...
As Kant says, we cannot acquire discursive metaphysical (in the traditional, not his Synthetic a priori, sense) knowledge, but that it is, nonetheless...
Why? Epistemology is the inquiry into what we know and how we know anything. It is arguable that we can know, on the basis of reflection, what the ess...
If you take that as an "ad hominem attack", then you are probably too overly sensitive for a robust philosophical discussion, so yes, we'd best leave ...
You seem to be contradicting yourself. How could the appearance of conscious sentient beings bring the universe into existence if it is not the case "...
It wasn't a personal attack. By your irrelevant comments you have demonstrated that you don't understand what Kant was doing. I am not criticizing you...
Kant is talking, not about any purported objective characteristics of space and time ( for him they are not objective, but subjective), but about how ...
Duration. All experiences must persist for a time. I wasn't thinking of sequence; but that raises a different question: can we understand events witho...
What do you mean "determine all possible experiences"? Are you saying we cannot think of the necessary general characteristics of any experience? That...
Right, but I would say not since Kant. Or was it epistemology under the guise of (a new kind of) metaphysics or proto-phenomenology? Do you think it i...
Comments