value wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 4:42 pm
GE Morton wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 1:50 pm
value wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 10:05 am
Emmanuel Kant wrote:Everything in nature works according to laws.
What would be your opinion about this fundamental statement that seems to underlay the whole theory of Emmanuel Kant which would include the apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) - the belief in the realness (non-disputableness) of space and time - that would form the basis of the idea that reality is 'really real'?
Yes, that is a basic postulate of scientific theorizing/reasoning. Without it, you can't construct a coherent theory of "reality."
It is a belief in uniformitarianism - the dogmatic belief that the facts of science are valid without philosophy
. That belief is a fallacy in my opinion.
Well, uniformitarianism is the belief that the universe is "law governed" --- i.e., that it evolves in obedience to certain universal laws. Those "laws" are just regularities discerned by observation and for which no exceptions are known. And, yes, the facts of science are "valid without philosophy." They don't depend upon any philosophy, but only upon observation.
Every theory must begin from certain postulates, or axioms --- propositions which are self-evident, and may be accepted without proof (otherwise you embark upon an infinite regress). For the sciences those are the physical constants --- the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, the charge constant, etc., and certain regularities and equivalencies for which no exceptions are known, such as the laws of motion, the law of entropy, etc. Postulates cannot be "fallacies." A fallacy is an error in reasoning, in drawing a conclusion from a set of premises in violation of some logical rule. Postulates can be false, but not "fallacious." Which scientific postulates do you think are false? Keep in mind that to falsify it, you need an empirical, publicly-verifiable counter-example --- not some nebulous "metaphysical" speculation.
Why would one assume the idea of 'law as such' merely by 'looking at' repeatability in nature?
Because that is all that a scientific law is --- a regularity readily observable and for which no exceptions are known. (Don't confuse scientific laws with legislative laws --- the latter presume a law-giver; the former do not).
Kant's apodictical certainty is essentially an example. The a priori forms of intuition space and time is equal to the idea of repeatability.
No, it isn't. For Kant, the categories are "built-in" to our cognitive apparatus. They are not acquired through experience ("repeatability").
It is nonsensical in my opinion to consider repeatable nature to be a necessity. It would only be so in the form of value (words) but not IN experience.
It isn't logically necessary. It is only instrumentally necessary for devising scientific theories. There could be no theory of a chaotic, unpredictable universe consisting of random phenomena, where every moment you're confronted with entities and events no one has ever seen before, and may never see again. You can only devise theories for coherent, law-governed systems that behave in predictable ways. And since science has been very successful in describing the universe and predicting much of its behavior, we can take that uniformitarian postulate as confirmed.