990113 2306 - KANT-L digest 1158

Go to: Next / Index

Von: Farid Novin <fnovin@bank-banque-canada.ca>
An: Multiple recipients of list <kant-l@bucknell.edu>
Betreff: Re: KANT-L digest 1158
Datum: Mittwoch, 13. Januar 1999 23:17

Bob Binkley wrote:

"And if the question is whether in acquiring knowledge we one of produce
the conformity by changing our beliefs or changing the objects, then surely
it is a matter of changing beliefs since we are powerless to change the
objects."

I think the genius of Kant is evident from the simple fact
that, in response to Hume's scepticism, he recognised that
nature, in its phenomenal representation, *must* conform
to the legislative powers of reason, and it is indeed the object
that must *obey* and change according to the rules
enacted by the *observer*.

In a dialogue with Paul Mathias in this list on May 28, 1997
I went into some detail to establish how and why this is the case.
Kant's discovery, of course, does not agree with George Boole's Laws of
Thought, which formulate our logical understanding of the nature.
>From the results of the poll it is clear that people have a great deal of difficulty
to grasp the essence of Kant's Copernican thesis. The use of
expressions such as * normal science* shows that Kant's
view poses a Monty Hallian problem for most people. The laws of probability
clearly determine the winning strategy for the Monty's game, and yet
most people (even after understanding these laws) continue to bet on the
wrong strategy, thinking that their intuition somehow would be correct.

I would be very interested to see at least one example
in the so called *normal sciences* or any other possible place which could
validate the position A in which an *object* can defy its
oberver and can remain what it is supposed to *be*.
I suggest, *no* instances are possible.

Best Regards
fN