No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Kantian Foundations of Modern Science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2022
Extract
One way of putting our Interpretive problem, as Professor Butts, does in his very interesting paper, is to characterize the relation(s) between Kant's transcendental and metaphysical principles, on the one hand, and between these principles and the presumptive laws of empirical science, on the other. Another way of putting the problem is to distinguish between Kant's merely illustrative use of the science of his day, his appropriation, generalization, and redeployment of contemporary, often chemical, concepts, his commitment to certain features of classical physics, in particular, as constitutive of any adequate conception of experience, and his identification of the deep presuppositions of any science worthy of the name.
In fact, I do not think that there is any general and precise way in which transcendental and metaphysical principles and the laws of empirical science are related. At best there are analogies.
- Type
- Part XVII. Kant's Philosophy of Science
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association
Footnotes
1
Professors Butts and McMullln saved me from several mlsstateoents. Would that others had done likewise.
References
Archimedes, “On Floating Bodies.” In The Works of Archimedes. (trans.) T.L. Heath. New York: Dover, n.d. Pages 253-300.Google Scholar
Brittan, Gordon (1978). Kant's Theory of Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brittan, Gordon (1984). “Kant, Closure, and Causality.” In Kant on Causality, Freedom, and Objectivity. Edited by W.L. Harper and R. Meerbote. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pages 66-82.Google Scholar
Brittan, Gordon (1986). “Kant and the Objects of Theory.” In New Essays on Kant. Edited by den Ouden. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. (forthcoming.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, G (1969). Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Butts, Robert (1985). “Kant's Philosophy of Science: The Transition From Metaphysics To Science.” In PSA 1984, Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D and Kitcher, P. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 685-705.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo (1612). Discorso... intorno alle cose, che stanno in su l'acqua, ò che in ouella si muouono. Firenze: C. Giunti; (As reprinted as part of S. Drake Cause, Experiment, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Kant, I (1786). Die metaphysischen Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft. Riga: Hartknoch. (As reprinted as Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, (trans.) J. Ellington. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970. Pages 1-134.Google Scholar
Kant, I (1787). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. 2nd ed. Riga: Hartknoch. (As reprinted as Critique of Pura Reason. (trans.) Smith, N.K. London: MacMillan, 1963.Google Scholar
Kant, I (1790). Kritik der Urteilskraft. Berlin: LaGarde. (As reprinted as The Critique of Judgment, (trans.) J.C. Meredith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1983). “Kant's Philosophy of Science.” In Midwest Studies in Philosophy. Volume VIII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Edited by French, P.A; Uehling, T.E Jr. and Wettstein, H.K. Pages 387-407.Google Scholar
Leicester, Henry (1956). The Historical Background of Chemistry. New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ernst von (1889). Gesohiohte der ohemie von den ältesten zeiten bis zur gegenwart. Leipzig: Veit. (As reprinted as A History of Chemistry, (trans.) G. M'Gowan. London: MacMillan and Co., 1891.Google Scholar
von Wright, G.H (1971). Explanation and Understanding. Ithaoa: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar