38
edits
Changes
no edit summary
By defining analytic and synthetic statements and the worlds of noumena and phenomena, Kant has driven epistemological discourse regarding natural sciences into a new era, where the dispute began to circulate around the epistemological nature of synthetic statements in particular and how crucial it is for the notion of testability (Friedman, 2002, p. 176)<ref>Friedman, M., 2002. Kant, Kuhn and the Rationality of Science. Philosophy of Science, 69(2), pp. 171-190.</ref> . To this day, Kantian influences can be seen in much of modern philosophy of science, such as in the theories of logical empiricism, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn and more.
|Criticism=One of the main criticisms Kant received was targeted towards the premises he used for the deduction of the Principle. To recall, the premises were: Absolute certainty exists, and a world with no strict causal relationships is unknowable. For the first premise, Karl Popper (1902-1994) amongst other fallibilists dismantled the view that absolute certainty in science exists. This view arose after the discovery of Einstein’s theory of general relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics, where it was realised that we do indeed have a historical record of transitioning from one dominating worldview to the next. Fallibilism was further exemplified with the acceptance of quantum mechanics along with general relativity by the scientific community despite the irreconcilable contradictions that arise when examining extreme conditions, which illustrated that the scientific community itself does not operate by assuming absolute certainty.
Another criticism of Kant was again, targeted at one of the premises of the Principle. Kant held a strict determinist perspective when devising his Principle, and in light of more recent advances in quantum theory, we know that a certain cause does not necessarily yield a certain outcome. Using the example of a radioactive molecule and its half life, we know that by the definition of “half life” being “the time period where the probability of a radioactive atom decays is 50%”, and as such the atom may or may not decay at a specific time (i.e. at the exact half life value) but rather any time within that timeframe<ref>Anon., n.d. Radioactive Half Life. [Online] Available at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/halfli2.html [Accessed 27 11 2016].</ref>. A third criticism was presented by A.J. Ayer (1910-1989) <ref>Ayer, A., 1952 (first published 1936). Language, Truth and Logic. United Kingdom: Dover Publications.</ref> where he criticised Kant for conflating the psychological and epistemological criteria of evaluating analytic/synthetic statements. In the example Kant gives of “7+5=12” being a synthetic statement, and “all bodies are extended” being an analytic statement, Kant employs 2 different criterion and equates the two without clarification. In the first statement, Kant deems it synthetic as the definitions of “7” and “5” are not contained in “12”. On the other hand, Kant evaluates “all bodies are extended” as analytic simply because it would be contradictory if otherwise. However, a person with knowledge of the symbol “+” would understand that when put together, “7+5” does indeed share the same concept as “12”, and this statement would be analytic if evaluated as the second statement has been.Furthermore, Ayer amongst other philosophers have shown that Kant was incorrect in assuming Euclidean geometry was a priori and held factual content about physical space i.e. is synthetic (Ayer, 1952 (first published 1936), p. 45-46), as the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry and application by Einstein in his general theory of relativity disproved of this entirely. Consequently, philosophers now see that axioms of geometry do not “hold factual content”, but are merely definitions. This criticism directly dismantles Kant’s a priori form of space as a necessary precondition for rationalising the world.
|Related Topics=Theory,
|DateofBirth=1722/04/22
}}