Theory of Science Reflections

During the first theme of this course i have read two challenging texts (Kant’s critique of Pure Reason and Plato’s Theaetetus) which both required alot of focus and patience. Even though i’ve read different sections of the texts multiple times it was hard to get a grasp around some concepts, especially Kant's reasoning about knowledge. Prior to the lecture i read all the texts to prepare for the lecture and during the lecture i noted interesting points to discuss at the seminar.

During the lecture held by Johan Eriksson we started discussing the different approaches to knowledge like Naturalism (both ontological and epistemological) and Scientism (A is really because of B) and how the telelogical view of the world (moral & religious view) gets replaced with the mechanical world view (pressure, attraction, force). Knowledge about the world can also be divided into Primary/Secondary qualities where the primary qualities are absolute in the sense that they would exist even though there were no experience creatures (like size, weight, motion etc). While secondary qualities would not exist if there were no experiencing creatures (like smell, taste, warmth etc.) Furthermore an objective description of an object is an description that isnt based on experience and therefore is the purpose of a method to eliminate these ”distortive” aspects which we gain by experience. Basically to create a dehumanized description and explanation of the nature of the world. This is something that the American Philosopher Thomas Nagel described as ”the view from nowhere”. To Thomas the view of objectivity is the kind of motion where we try to ”transcend our particular viewpoint and develop an expanded consciousness that takes in the world more fully”. However, there are limits to this view because we can’t actually take the ”view from nowhere” since this is the view of god, we cannot fully transcend the human subject.

Since Kant’s text critique of pure reason was the most abstract and hard subject to grasp it was the main point of discussion both in class and at the seminar. What i realised is that my interpetation on what Kant was trying to say is somewhat of the ”schoolbook example” of his critique of pure reason. That is that we cannot really know anything about things-in-themselves, we can only know the world through our ”spectacles” therefore there is no ”real” knowledge. But after our discussions at the seminar my interpetation of what Kant is talking about changed. ”The world has to conform to our faculties of knowledge” does not mean that we can only know things through our ”spectacles”, therefore we cannot know anything about things-in-themselves, and therefore there is no real knowledge but rather that there is some forms of intuition and categories of understanding which structures our experiences in different ways. How we percieve things has to be structured according to for example space and time. If you think about it, how can you imagine abscence of space? It is not possible for me to imagine abscense of space, i can imagine abscense of different objects in space, but i cannot imagine abscense of space. Therefore space and time are inherent forms of the world and in some sense makes everything as it is, as it is. Our knowledge of forms of intuitions like space and time is therefore knowledge of the world.