Cat-in-Itself is a Focus Imaginarus Illusion

[Veritas Aequitas]

For Discussion:

Question to AI

The philosophical realist and scientific realist claimed that there is the noumenon or thing-in-itself awaiting to be discovered and precisely determined by science which exists beyond the human mind and empirical evidences.
For example, upon seeing and justifying the existence of a cat via the scientific method [biology], it is claimed realists can only know the the cat as verified described but the cat-in-itself independent of the human mind cannot be known directly.

I understand Kant's focus imaginarus is applied to transcendental illusions.
Can the analogy of the focus-imaginarus be applied to the above in some ways, i.e. the cat-in-itself is actually a projected cat rather than a real cat?

Various AIs or even the same AI offer different views, here is one I agree with;
AI's response [wR]:

Yes, Kant's concept of focus imaginarius can be applied to the scientific realist's notion of the thing-in-itself in the context of the cat example.

Focus Imaginarius and the Thing-in-Itself
Kant's Focus Imaginarius: This refers to the way the imagination constructs an image of an object based on empirical data. It's a mental representation that allows us to think about and interact with the world.
Scientific Realist's Thing-in-Itself: This is the objective reality that exists independently of our perception or cognition. It's the ultimate reality that science aims to uncover.
The analogy between the two lies in the fact that both involve a gap or distance between our perception and the underlying reality.

The Cat-in-Itself as a Focus Imaginarius?
In the case of the cat, the scientific realist claims that we can only know the cat as it appears to us through our senses and scientific methods. The cat-in-itself, however, remains unknowable.

From a Kantian perspective, we could argue that the cat-in-itself is essentially a focus imaginarius constructed by our minds.
It's a mental representation that we form based on our empirical experiences. While we may believe that this representation corresponds to an objective reality, we can never truly know whether it's a faithful depiction or a projection of our own mental constructs.

Key points to consider:

The Limits of Human Perception: Kant emphasized the limits of human perception and cognition. Our knowledge is always mediated through our senses and understanding, which can distort or limit our understanding of reality.
The Constructive Nature of Human Experience: Our experience of the world is not a passive reception of sensory data but an active construction. We use our imagination and understanding to make sense of our perceptions.
The Unknowable Ding-an-sich: The thing-in-itself remains fundamentally unknowable to us. It's a concept that serves as a limit to our knowledge, reminding us of the gap between our perception and the ultimate reality.

In conclusion, while the scientific realist and Kant have different approaches to the nature of reality, the analogy between focus imaginarius and the thing-in-itself highlights the limitations of human knowledge and the potential for our understanding of the world to be shaped by our own mental constructs.

Note the above conclusion is "From the Kantian's Perspective.."

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an explanation on the workings of the focus-imaginarus generating illusions;

Kant seems to argue that the focus imaginarius serves merely to allow Reason to think more than that which experience itself provides, but it can never give access to the underlying Reason why it is the case.

The concept of the focus imaginarius goes back at least as far as Kepler’s work on optics in the early 1600s.
In it, Kepler distinguishes between the medieval notion of an imago, which is only a product of the imagination, and the real image (pictura) that makes vision itself possible.
For instance, the eye translates light that passes through the retina into a pictura by converting the inverted real image from sensation into a copy.
In his Opticks (1704), Newton adopts this distinction between the real image and the imaginary one in order to explain the phenomena of light.

Consider, for instance, the way that light is reflected on the surface of a mirror.
Looking toward a mirror, the eyes direct their gaze toward an imaginary object a that lies behind the field of vision on the other side of the mirror,
while the real focus is directed toward the object A that lies behind my back.
Newton claims that the imaginary focus that lies behind the mirror is what allows us to actually see the real object behind our backs that, without the mirror, we would not be able to see (Fig. 2.1):
The converging lines on the surface of the mirror produce an optical illusion regarding the real position of the object.
In this case, the illusion a projects the focus toward A––even if we are unaware of the imaginary object a.

Kant’s notion of the emergence of illusion certainly draws on this description of the focus imaginarius.
The metaphysician thinks that the soul belongs out there in the empirical world, because he takes the reflections of the soul’s deeds in the world as evidence of its location somewhere in space.
Even though the metaphysician cannot perceive the soul or God, he nonetheless projects his own inner image onto the empirical world.

I take it that Kant’s notion of the focus imaginarius is also necessary to understand his description of transcendental illusion in the first Critique, illusions said to be distinct in kind from mere optical (empirical) illusions.
-Cody Staton

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Atla]

For Discussion:

Question to AI

The philosophical realist and scientific realist claimed that there is the noumenon or thing-in-itself awaiting to be discovered and precisely determined by science which exists beyond the human mind and empirical evidences.
...

Does the following sentence in quotation marks fundamentally confuse the concept of empirical in Kantian philosophy with the concept of empirical in modern science?

"The philosophical realist and scientific realist claimed that there is the noumenon or thing-in-itself awaiting to be discovered and precisely determined by science which exists beyond the human mind and empirical evidences."

Yes, the sentence in quotation marks does fundamentally confuse the concept of "empirical" in Kantian philosophy with the concept of "empirical" in modern science. Let’s break down why:

Kantian Concept of Empirical:

In Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the term "empirical" refers to knowledge or experiences derived from the senses and shaped by the categories of human understanding. The empirical world, or the world of phenomena, is what we can experience and know through these senses. However, Kant famously distinguishes this empirical, phenomenal world from the noumenal world, which refers to things as they are in themselves, independent of our sensory experience. According to Kant, we cannot have direct knowledge of the noumenal world because our knowledge is limited to what is presented to us through the lens of human cognition.

Empirical in Modern Science:

In modern science, "empirical" refers to knowledge that is based on observation, experimentation, and evidence gathered from the physical world. Science aims to discover objective truths about the natural world through empirical methods, often assuming a form of realism where the world exists independently of human perception and can be known through scientific investigation.

Confusion in the Sentence:

The sentence claims that both the philosophical realist and the scientific realist believe in the existence of the noumenon or "thing-in-itself" that can be "discovered and precisely determined by science." This confuses Kant's concept of the noumenon with the modern scientific concept of empirical reality.

Kantian Noumenon vs. Scientific Reality: In Kant's framework, the noumenon is beyond empirical observation and scientific discovery. It is, by definition, something that cannot be accessed or known through the empirical methods of science. Modern science, on the other hand, operates within the realm of the empirical world (phenomena in Kant's terms), and does not claim to access or precisely determine the noumenon.
Misinterpretation of Kant's Empirical Realm: The sentence conflates Kant's empirical world (which is limited to what we can perceive and experience) with the scientific pursuit of objective reality. In Kantian terms, science investigates phenomena, not the noumenon, and cannot claim to discover the noumenon or "thing-in-itself."

Conclusion:

The sentence indeed confuses the Kantian concept of "empirical" with the scientific concept. In Kantian philosophy, the empirical world is tied to human perception and cognition, while the noumenal world is beyond empirical knowledge. In contrast, modern science focuses on empirical evidence to uncover truths about the physical world, without necessarily engaging with the Kantian distinction between noumenon and phenomenon.

[Iwannaplato]

For Discussion:

Question to AI
The philosophical realist and scientific realist claimed that there is the noumenon or thing-in-itself awaiting to be discovered and precisely determined by science which exists beyond the human mind and empirical evidences.
...

yes, that question is hilariously confused.

I was more surprised by the AI strange sentence here....

In the case of the cat, the scientific realist claims that we can only know the cat as it appears to us through our senses and scientific methods. The cat-in-itself, however, remains unknowable.

Not only is that not the case, but even weirder and more telling is that VA didn't even notice this. He doesn't read what the AIs say.
Why?
Because if scientific realists believed this, then there's no problem. They are more or less anti-realists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For Discussion:

Question to AI

The philosophical realist and scientific realist claimed that there is the noumenon or thing-in-itself awaiting to be discovered and precisely determined by science which exists beyond the human mind and empirical evidences.
...

Does the following sentence in quotation marks fundamentally confuse the concept of empirical in Kantian philosophy with the concept of empirical in modern science?

"The philosophical realist and scientific realist claimed that there is the noumenon or thing-in-itself awaiting to be discovered and precisely determined by science which exists beyond the human mind and empirical evidences."

Yes, the sentence in quotation marks does fundamentally confuse the concept of "empirical" in Kantian philosophy with the concept of "empirical" in modern science. Let’s break down why:

Kantian Concept of Empirical:

In Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the term "empirical" refers to knowledge or experiences derived from the senses and shaped by the categories of human understanding. The empirical world, or the world of phenomena, is what we can experience and know through these senses. However, Kant famously distinguishes this empirical, phenomenal world from the noumenal world, which refers to things as they are in themselves, independent of our sensory experience. According to Kant, we cannot have direct knowledge of the noumenal world because our knowledge is limited to what is presented to us through the lens of human cognition.

Empirical in Modern Science:

In modern science, "empirical" refers to knowledge that is based on observation, experimentation, and evidence gathered from the physical world. Science aims to discover objective truths about the natural world through empirical methods, often assuming a form of realism where the world exists independently of human perception and can be known through scientific investigation.

Confusion in the Sentence:

The sentence claims that both the philosophical realist and the scientific realist believe in the existence of the noumenon or "thing-in-itself" that can be "discovered and precisely determined by science." This confuses Kant's concept of the noumenon with the modern scientific concept of empirical reality.

Kantian Noumenon vs. Scientific Reality: In Kant's framework, the noumenon is beyond empirical observation and scientific discovery. It is, by definition, something that cannot be accessed or known through the empirical methods of science. Modern science, on the other hand, operates within the realm of the empirical world (phenomena in Kant's terms), and does not claim to access or precisely determine the noumenon.
Misinterpretation of Kant's Empirical Realm: The sentence conflates Kant's empirical world (which is limited to what we can perceive and experience) with the scientific pursuit of objective reality. In Kantian terms, science investigates phenomena, not the noumenon, and cannot claim to discover the noumenon or "thing-in-itself."

Conclusion:

The sentence indeed confuses the Kantian concept of "empirical" with the scientific concept. In Kantian philosophy, the empirical world is tied to human perception and cognition, while the noumenal world is beyond empirical knowledge. In contrast, modern science focuses on empirical evidence to uncover truths about the physical world, without necessarily engaging with the Kantian distinction between noumenon and phenomenon.

In the OP I anticipated and so highlighted the following;
OP: Note the above conclusion is "From the Kantian's Perspective.."

also mentioned;
"Various AIs or even the same AI offer different views, here is one I agree with;"

Every time when I discussed AI's view from ATLA's prompt, -by giving the proper context - AI will end up agreeing with me after I had explained the details. Anyone wanna bet on this?

Point is ATLA had not read and understood [not agree with] Kant's CPR thoroughly.
In the above case, AI only dealt with the issue superficially but not taking into account the matter in depth.

[Impenitent]

unless it is Shrodinger's cat- then it's a Focus Imaginarus corpse

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe there is something to learn from these exchanges and exposed who is the ignorant ultracrepidarian gnat.

Here's ChatGpt response in view of the details I provided:

In conclusion:
Kant would argue that realists, by claiming that reality exists independently of human perception and can be uncovered by science, are invoking the noumenon (even if they do not use the term).
However, Kant would also critique the idea that science could ever reach or determine the noumenon, because it lies beyond the limits of human cognition and empirical knowledge.
Your point that the sentence is reasonable from the Kantian perspective, insofar as it reflects how Kant would see the realist's position, is sound.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The detailed exchange with ChatGpt:

My interlocutor presented the following to ChatGpt and ChatGpt responded accordingly:

.............
[Interlocutor] Does the following sentence in quotation marks fundamentally confuse the concept of empirical in Kantian philosophy with the concept of empirical in modern science?
"The philosophical realist and scientific realist claimed that there is the noumenon or thing-in-itself awaiting to be discovered and precisely determined by science which exists beyond the human mind and empirical evidences."
..............

ChatGpt Responded to the above with the following conclusion:
[ChatGpt] Conclusion:
"The sentence indeed confuses the Kantian concept of "empirical" with the scientific concept. In Kantian philosophy, the empirical world is tied to human perception and cognition, while the noumenal world is beyond empirical knowledge.
In contrast, modern science focuses on empirical evidence to uncover truths about the physical world, without necessarily engaging with the Kantian distinction between noumenon and phenomenon."
.................

I believe there are nuances to be considered in the above issue.

In agree, with reference to scientists in general, modern science focuses on empirical evidence to uncover truths about the physical world, without necessarily engaging with the Kantian distinction between noumenon and phenomenon.
Scientists in general do not bother with philosophical issue re noumenon vs phenomenon.

However, in the Philosophy of Science, the philosophical realists and scientific realists make a philosophical claim i.e.;
"Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
As such, philosophical and scientific realists believe there is something out there which exists regardless of whether there are humans or not. So, this something =X is beyond the empirical evidences gathered by science.

FROM THE KANTIAN PERSPECTIVE, Kant asserted the philosophical and scientific realist as grounded on Transcendental Realism is targeting that something beyond empirical evidences as the noumenon - the transcendental object X.

As such, FROM THE KANTIAN PERSPECTIVE, there is no confusion with the quoted point,
"The philosophical realist and scientific realist claimed that there is the noumenon or thing-in-itself awaiting to be discovered and precisely determined by science which exists beyond the human mind and empirical evidences."

Is the above reasonable FROM THE KANTIAN PERSPECTIVE?

ChatGpt's response:

Your response presents an interesting perspective that nuances the issue raised. Let me break it down step by step in relation to Kantian philosophy and philosophical/scientific realism:

Kant's Distinction Between Phenomenon and Noumenon
In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon (or the thing-in-itself) is fundamentally inaccessible to human cognition. According to Kant, human knowledge is limited to the phenomena, which are the appearances shaped by our cognitive faculties (especially space, time, and categories like causality). The noumenal realm, while posited as existing, lies beyond the reach of human perception and empirical investigation.

Modern Science and Empirical Evidence
In modern science, the term "empirical" refers to knowledge that is derived from observation, experimentation, and evidence. Scientific inquiry is largely concerned with the physical world that can be observed and measured. As you noted, scientists often do not explicitly engage with philosophical debates about noumena; they focus on what is empirically accessible and testable.

Philosophical and Scientific Realism
Philosophical realists, including many scientific realists, maintain that there is a reality that exists independently of human minds. This belief implies that there are objective truths about the world, even if our current scientific theories are only approximations of that truth. Realists argue that over time, science can move closer to an accurate understanding of that independent reality.

Your Argument in Context
From the Kantian perspective, the philosophical/scientific realist's claim that there is a reality (or noumenon) "awaiting to be discovered" does indeed invoke the noumenal realm as something beyond empirical evidence. Kant would critique this realist position as an example of Transcendental Realism—the view that the noumenon can be known directly or indirectly through science. Kant rejects this, maintaining that the noumenon, by definition, cannot be empirically known or scientifically discovered because all human knowledge is constrained by the limits of perception and cognition.

You suggest that from a Kantian point of view, the realists are making an implicit appeal to the noumenon, and this is a valid observation.
The realists, in their search for an objective reality beyond empirical evidence, are targeting what Kant would call the thing-in-itself (noumenon).

Reasonableness of Your Argument
Yes, from the Kantian perspective, your interpretation is reasonable. Kant would argue that realists are indeed making claims about a reality that corresponds to what he called the noumenal world, even if the realists themselves do not frame it in those terms. The confusion in the original sentence arises not in whether realists aim for something beyond empirical evidence, but rather in assuming that this noumenal realm is something that could be discovered or determined by science, which Kant would deny.

In conclusion:
Kant would argue that realists, by claiming that reality exists independently of human perception and can be uncovered by science, are invoking the noumenon (even if they do not use the term).
However, Kant would also critique the idea that science could ever reach or determine the noumenon, because it lies beyond the limits of human cognition and empirical knowledge.
Your point that the sentence is reasonable from the Kantian perspective, insofar as it reflects how Kant would see the realist's position, is sound.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe there is something to learn from these exchanges and exposed who is the ignorant ultracrepidarian gnat.

Here's ChatGpt response in view of the details I provided:

In conclusion:
Kant would argue that realists, by claiming that reality exists independently of human perception and can be uncovered by science, are invoking the noumenon (even if they do not use the term).
However, Kant would also critique the idea that science could ever reach or determine the noumenon, because it lies beyond the limits of human cognition and empirical knowledge.
Your point that the sentence is reasonable from the Kantian perspective, insofar as it reflects how Kant would see the realist's position, is sound.

@ ATLA, how many more times do you want to be shamed?

[Atla]

@ ATLA, how many more times do you want to be shamed?

You haven't done it once. You were just shamed again, you are too stupid to understand what you instructed the AI to say. Luckily for you it's a core part of your personality defect that you can't feel shame.

Kant asserted the philosophical and scientific realist as grounded on Transcendental Realism is targeting that something beyond empirical evidences as the noumenon - the transcendental object X.

ChatGPT wrote the following in quotation marks. Is it true for all philosophical and scientific realists, or just true for transcendental realists?

"Your response presents an interesting perspective that nuances the issue raised. Let me break it down step by step in relation to Kantian philosophy and philosophical/scientific realism:

Kant's Distinction Between Phenomenon and Noumenon
In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon (or the thing-in-itself) is fundamentally inaccessible to human cognition. According to Kant, human knowledge is limited to the phenomena, which are the appearances shaped by our cognitive faculties (especially space, time, and categories like causality). The noumenal realm, while posited as existing, lies beyond the reach of human perception and empirical investigation.

Modern Science and Empirical Evidence
In modern science, the term "empirical" refers to knowledge that is derived from observation, experimentation, and evidence. Scientific inquiry is largely concerned with the physical world that can be observed and measured. As you noted, scientists often do not explicitly engage with philosophical debates about noumena; they focus on what is empirically accessible and testable.

Philosophical and Scientific Realism
Philosophical realists, including many scientific realists, maintain that there is a reality that exists independently of human minds. This belief implies that there are objective truths about the world, even if our current scientific theories are only approximations of that truth. Realists argue that over time, science can move closer to an accurate understanding of that independent reality.

Your Argument in Context
From the Kantian perspective, the philosophical/scientific realist's claim that there is a reality (or noumenon) "awaiting to be discovered" does indeed invoke the noumenal realm as something beyond empirical evidence. Kant would critique this realist position as an example of Transcendental Realism—the view that the noumenon can be known directly or indirectly through science. Kant rejects this, maintaining that the noumenon, by definition, cannot be empirically known or scientifically discovered because all human knowledge is constrained by the limits of perception and cognition.

You suggest that from a Kantian point of view, the realists are making an implicit appeal to the noumenon, and this is a valid observation.
The realists, in their search for an objective reality beyond empirical evidence, are targeting what Kant would call the thing-in-itself (noumenon).

Reasonableness of Your Argument
Yes, from the Kantian perspective, your interpretation is reasonable. Kant would argue that realists are indeed making claims about a reality that corresponds to what he called the noumenal world, even if the realists themselves do not frame it in those terms. The confusion in the original sentence arises not in whether realists aim for something beyond empirical evidence, but rather in assuming that this noumenal realm is something that could be discovered or determined by science, which Kant would deny.

In conclusion:
Kant would argue that realists, by claiming that reality exists independently of human perception and can be uncovered by science, are invoking the noumenon (even if they do not use the term).
However, Kant would also critique the idea that science could ever reach or determine the noumenon, because it lies beyond the limits of human cognition and empirical knowledge.
Your point that the sentence is reasonable from the Kantian perspective, insofar as it reflects how Kant would see the realist's position, is sound."

The statement you've provided makes claims that intersect with complex philosophical positions, particularly the relationship between Kantian philosophy and various forms of realism. Let's break down the key points to address whether this applies to all philosophical and scientific realists, or just to transcendental realists.

1. Kant's Distinction Between Phenomenon and Noumenon
Kant distinguishes between the phenomenon (what we can perceive and know) and the noumenon (the "thing-in-itself," which is beyond our cognitive grasp). According to Kant, human knowledge is limited to phenomena, and we cannot access the noumenon directly. This distinction is specific to Kantian philosophy and is not universally accepted by all realists.

2. Philosophical and Scientific Realism
Philosophical and scientific realism generally hold that there is a reality that exists independently of our perceptions and beliefs. However, not all realists are committed to the idea of a noumenal realm in the Kantian sense.

Scientific Realists: They argue that the goal of science is to describe and understand the world as it is, independent of human perception. While they acknowledge that scientific theories may only approximate the truth, they believe that over time, science can get closer to an accurate representation of reality. Scientific realists typically focus on the observable world and do not necessarily make claims about an unknowable noumenon.

Philosophical Realists: This group is diverse, and their positions vary. Some realists may align with a position similar to what you describe as "transcendental realism," where they posit a reality that exists beyond our perceptual and cognitive capacities (which could be likened to the noumenon). However, not all philosophical realists endorse this view. Some realists focus on the mind-independent existence of entities without invoking the concept of a noumenal realm.

3. Transcendental Realism vs. Other Forms of Realism
Transcendental realism, in the context of Kantian philosophy, refers to the belief that the noumenon (or the thing-in-itself) can be known or discovered, either directly or indirectly. Kant himself criticizes this view because, for him, the noumenal realm is inherently inaccessible to human cognition.

However, many realists—especially scientific realists—do not commit to the idea of a noumenal realm in the Kantian sense. They are primarily concerned with the reality that can be empirically investigated. Therefore, the statement that realists "invoke the noumenon" may apply more specifically to transcendental realists rather than to all philosophical or scientific realists.

Conclusion:

The claim in the quotation is not true for all philosophical and scientific realists. It is more applicable to transcendental realists who posit that there is a reality (noumenon) beyond empirical evidence that can be known. Many realists, particularly scientific realists, do not necessarily invoke the concept of the noumenon in their understanding of reality. They focus on the observable, empirical world, and their realism does not necessarily align with the Kantian notion of a noumenal realm.

Therefore, the statement you've provided would be more accurate if it were framed specifically in relation to transcendental realism rather than realism in general.

[Iwannaplato]

In the OP I anticipated and so highlighted the following;
OP: Note the above conclusion is "From the Kantian's Perspective.."

Which I read. That's the conclusion. But the post starts with a ludicrous rendering of the scientific realist's position. That is not the conclusion, it is part of the premises/context of the argument.
And so, you find it all telling and insult people, when in fact you did not say that the opéning statement was from the Kantian perspective. And even if you had, there would be problems with that formulation

The philosophical realist and scientific realist claimed that there is the noumenon or thing-in-itself awaiting to be discovered and precisely determined by science which exists beyond the human mind and empirical evidences.

That is pointless garbled mixture of two belief systems presented as if it is one of them.

And it leads to absurdities from the AI like this.....

In the case of the cat, the scientific realist claims that we can only know the cat as it appears to us through our senses and scientific methods. The cat-in-itself, however, remains unknowable.

which is false. This is not a representation of the scientific realist postion. It's the presentation of someone with two paradigms and a lot of confusion, but not a scientific realist.
So, you lash out with insults when people react to these absurdities and defend yourself with where you say the conclusion is from a Kantian perspective, not seeming to notice that problems begin, as shown in quote by people responding, much earlier than the conclusion.

I

[Atla]

I believe there is something to learn from these exchanges and exposed who is the ignorant ultracrepidarian gnat.

Here's ChatGpt response in view of the details I provided:

In conclusion:
Kant would argue that realists, by claiming that reality exists independently of human perception and can be uncovered by science, are invoking the noumenon (even if they do not use the term).
However, Kant would also critique the idea that science could ever reach or determine the noumenon, because it lies beyond the limits of human cognition and empirical knowledge.
Your point that the sentence is reasonable from the Kantian perspective, insofar as it reflects how Kant would see the realist's position, is sound.

I believe there is something to learn from these exchanges and exposed who is the ignorant ultracrepidarian gnat.

Here's ChatGpt response in view of the details I provided:

Conclusion:

The claim in the quotation is not true for all philosophical and scientific realists. It is more applicable to transcendental realists who posit that there is a reality (noumenon) beyond empirical evidence that can be known. Many realists, particularly scientific realists, do not necessarily invoke the concept of the noumenon in their understanding of reality. They focus on the observable, empirical world, and their realism does not necessarily align with the Kantian notion of a noumenal realm.

Therefore, the statement you've provided would be more accurate if it were framed specifically in relation to transcendental realism rather than realism in general.

The so-called "Kantian perspective" is that Kant was contrasting transcendental idealism with transcendental realism. But that doesn't cover all possible philosophies, not even remotely. Just like substance monism vs substance dualism doesn't cover all philosophies. Idealism vs materialism doesn't cover all philosophies. Italy vs Greece doesn't cover all countries. Red vs blue doesn't cover all colors. 6 vs 13 doesn't cover all numbers. Swimming vs football doesn't cover all sports. VA doesn't understand these things.

[Iwannaplato]

And his defense of the absurdities in the OP is that he said that the conclusion was from a Kantian perspective. But the position he attributes to scientific realists and realists in general is not in the conclusion but in the opening and the middle. And regardless, they are absurd confused statements. They are not how a competent Kantian would frame the scientific realist position.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Therefore, the statement you've provided would be more accurate if it were framed specifically in relation to transcendental realism rather than realism in general.

We have gone through this before with a taxanomy of 'realism'.
Yes, transcendental realism cannot be classed as realism-in-general, so a detailed analysis is necessary to find out how Kant's transcendental realism is the same with philosophical and scientific realism.

Classes of Realism
viewtopic.php?t=42601

Key Points
Absolute Mind-Independence: Realities in this category exist entirely independently of human perception or cognition. This includes traditional philosophical realism, indirect realism, and Kant's transcendental realism as critiqued by Kant.

Relative Mind-Independence: Realities in this category exist independently of individual perceptions but are structured by the human mind's conditions of experience. This aligns with Kant's empirical realism and his Copernican Revolution.

Thus:
Kant's transcendental realism is classed with whatever realism that claims Absolutely Mind-Independence, i.e.

Classification Summary
Class 1: Absolutely Mind-Independent Realism:
-Philosophical Realism
-Indirect Realism
-Direct Realism
-Kant's Transcendental Realism (as critiqued by Kant)
-scientific realism
-moral realism [naturalism, non-naturalism]

Class 2: Relative Mind-Independent Realism:
-Kant's Empirical Realism
-Anti-Philosophical Realism
-moral empirical realism
-scientific anti-realism

If I go back to ChatGpt with the above, it will surely confirm my claims as it had done before.
How many more times do you want to be shamed for ignorance?