The Transcendental Ground of Science

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

From the philosophical perspective, the general view of science is that of scientific realism [a sub of philosophical realism]. Scientific Realism claims there is an ontological real absolutely human/mind independent reality beyond whatever the scientific conclusions, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
Scientific Realists believe that whatever we believe now [discovered by Science] is only an approximation of [the mind-independent] reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.

Scientific Antirealism
However, there is a more realistic opposing view to the above, i.e. on that is based on scientific antirealism [Kantian].
Scientific antirealism believe Science merely assumes an ideal transcendental reality to ground and facilitate the progress of science. As such, it rejects the existence of an absolutely human/mind independent reality.

Here is a presentation on the above thesis of scientific antirealism re Kant, i.e.;

Transcendental Grounds of Science: An Introduction and Justification

Introduction: The concept of "Transcendental Grounds of Science" stems from Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, where certain foundational ideas — or "regulative ideals" — are posited not to describe reality directly, but to organize and guide scientific inquiry.
Kant argues that science relies on fundamental assumptions that structure how we understand and explore nature, even though these assumptions are not empirically verifiable themselves.
Transcendental grounds are thus the conditions that make coherent and systematic scientific knowledge possible, providing a framework within which empirical inquiry can operate effectively.

Justification: Kant justifies the need for transcendental grounds by showing that without them, science would lack orientation and coherence.
He points out that:

Systematic Unity: Science requires an assumption of unity in nature — that diverse phenomena can be systematically unified. This is not an empirical discovery but a guiding principle that directs scientists to seek connections and order across observations, enhancing both the depth and reach of scientific knowledge.

Regulative Ideals: Ideas like "pure earth," "pure air," and "fundamental power" are examples of scientific ideals that are not empirically achievable. These ideals, however, guide scientists by providing a target or model, like 100% purity in chemistry, that organizes inquiry and drives improvements in empirical methods. They operate as regulative, not constitutive, ideas — they do not claim that these pure forms exist in reality but rather serve as standards that bring coherence to scientific classifications and theories.

Principles of Rational Inquiry: Kant suggests that scientific progress depends on principles of homogeneity, specification, and affinity — concepts that lead us to assume continuity and gradation in nature. These principles guide the categorization of phenomena and support the search for connections across various domains, allowing scientists to form cohesive theories.

Boundary Concept of the Noumenon: The noumenon, or thing-in-itself, represents the ultimate boundary of our knowledge, reminding us that while science organizes and predicts phenomena within human cognitive limits, it does not access absolute reality. This boundary concept prevents science from overstepping into metaphysical claims about a mind-independent reality, allowing science to remain rigorous without assuming it uncovers reality in its entirety.

Conclusion: The Transcendental Grounds of Science refer to the underlying principles and ideals that enable scientific inquiry to pursue systematic unity and coherence. While these principles do not reveal an absolute reality beyond human cognition, they provide an essential framework that makes empirical science possible and meaningful. By adopting this transcendental perspective, we acknowledge the structured, framework-dependent nature of scientific knowledge, emphasizing that science is a human endeavor grounded in rational organization rather than an absolute disclosure of reality.
Discuss??
Views?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Kant's perspective as outlined above in the OP indeed provides a counter to the claims of philosophical and scientific realists who posit an absolutely mind-independent reality as the grounding of scientific knowledge.
Kant's perspective as outlined above in the OP indeed provides a counter to the claims of philosophical and scientific realists who posit an absolutely mind-independent reality as the grounding of scientific knowledge. According to Kant, the drive for systematic unity in science is not based on knowledge of an ontologically real, mind-independent world; rather, it is grounded in the regulative use of ideas that orient our inquiry. This position suggests that science is guided by rational principles like systematic unity and coherence — ideals that help organize empirical knowledge for predictive and explanatory purposes, rather than to make claims about the true ontological nature of reality itself.

For Kant, we must assume that nature conforms to principles of unity and coherence, but this assumption is only ever a heuristic tool, not an ontological claim about an absolutely independent reality. In this way, Kantian philosophy refutes the realist stance that science reveals an objective reality entirely independent of our perceptual and cognitive faculties. Instead, it aligns more closely with a framework-dependent view of knowledge, where scientific frameworks and systems yield knowledge that is effective for organizing and predicting phenomena but does not uncover reality in any absolute, mind-independent sense.

By grounding scientific inquiry in these regulative principles, Kant's view sidesteps the need for an ontologically real, mind-independent world as posited by scientific realism. The noumenon, understood as a regulative ideal or "useful illusion," allows scientific knowledge to progress by guiding our conceptual organization of experiences without requiring an absolute, independent ontological foundation. Thus, for Kant, the systematic unity that science aims for is a function of reason's organizing principles, not a reflection of a hidden, mind-independent reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Notes:
Will Bouwman
Posts: 1334
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Will Bouwman »

The what, now?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:24 amFrom the philosophical perspective, the general view of science is that of scientific realism [a sub of philosophical realism].
Says who?
Impenitent
Posts: 5774
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Impenitent »

Poincare is laughing

Kant didn't know it but he lived on a non-Euclidean sphere

-Imp
Atla
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Atla »

Systematic Unity: Science requires an assumption of unity in nature — that diverse phenomena can be systematically unified. This is not an empirical discovery but a guiding principle that directs scientists to seek connections and order across observations, enhancing both the depth and reach of scientific knowledge.
A hundred million scientific experiments were performed, and every time we found that the known universe has systematic unity regardless of human presence. But Kant said that this is BS, so this is BS.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 5:51 pm The what, now?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:24 amFrom the philosophical perspective, the general view of science is that of scientific realism [a sub of philosophical realism].
Says who?
From the philosophical perspective, Philosophical realism is the default view i.e. the majority, thus extended to scientific realism.
Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder. WIKI
From google search:
"Philosophical realism is the idea that things exist independently of whether or not anyone is thinking about or perceiving them. It's based on the idea of mind-independent objectivity, which means that objects exist regardless of whether or not someone believes in them."
Here is its definition within a sub-category within Philosophical Realism
Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... ic_realism
Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted.
A believer of scientific realism takes the universe as described by science to be true (or approximately true), because of their assertion that science can be used to find the truth (or approximate truth) about both the physical and metaphysical in the Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
Convinced?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Atla wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:12 pm
Systematic Unity: Science requires an assumption of unity in nature — that diverse phenomena can be systematically unified. This is not an empirical discovery but a guiding principle that directs scientists to seek connections and order across observations, enhancing both the depth and reach of scientific knowledge.
A hundred million scientific experiments were performed, and every time we found that the known universe has systematic unity regardless of human presence. But Kant said that this is BS, so this is BS.
As usual your thinking is narrow and shallow.

From a wider and deeper perspective:

This conclusion, i.e.
"A hundred million scientific experiments were performed, and every time we found that the known universe has systematic unity regardless of human presence."
could not be concluded with the presence of humans.
Therefore reality as realized and perceived in the above somehow cannot be absolutely mind-independent or independent of human presence.

1. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is comprised humans, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

A God eye view of reality is an impossibility.
Thus the above is most viable realization, cognition and perception of reality.
Atla
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 4:14 am
Atla wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:12 pm
Systematic Unity: Science requires an assumption of unity in nature — that diverse phenomena can be systematically unified. This is not an empirical discovery but a guiding principle that directs scientists to seek connections and order across observations, enhancing both the depth and reach of scientific knowledge.
A hundred million scientific experiments were performed, and every time we found that the known universe has systematic unity regardless of human presence. But Kant said that this is BS, so this is BS.
As usual your thinking is narrow and shallow.

From a wider and deeper perspective:

This conclusion, i.e.
"A hundred million scientific experiments were performed, and every time we found that the known universe has systematic unity regardless of human presence."
could not be concluded with the presence of humans.
Therefore reality as realized and perceived in the above somehow cannot be absolutely mind-independent or independent of human presence.

1. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is comprised humans, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

A God eye view of reality is an impossibility.
Thus the above is most viable realization, cognition and perception of reality.
Equating the personal perceived reality with all-there-is, isn't a wider and deeper perspective, it's a solipsistic form of insanity (approved by Kant).
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8533
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 5:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 4:14 am
Atla wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:12 pm
A hundred million scientific experiments were performed, and every time we found that the known universe has systematic unity regardless of human presence. But Kant said that this is BS, so this is BS.
As usual your thinking is narrow and shallow.

From a wider and deeper perspective:

This conclusion, i.e.
"A hundred million scientific experiments were performed, and every time we found that the known universe has systematic unity regardless of human presence."
could not be concluded with the presence of humans.
Therefore reality as realized and perceived in the above somehow cannot be absolutely mind-independent or independent of human presence.

1. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is comprised humans, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.

A God eye view of reality is an impossibility.
Thus the above is most viable realization, cognition and perception of reality.
Equating the personal perceived reality with all-there-is, isn't a wider and deeper perspective, it's a solipsistic form of insanity (approved by Kant).
As usual, different things stand out for me and you in VA's posts. I tackle the oddity of his syllolgism in the other thread and note that it actually goes in the other direction from his usual argument. But here there's the lovely
A God eye view of reality is an impossibility.
which comes right after....
1. Reality is all-there-is
2. All-there-is comprised humans, i.e. intricately part and parcel of reality.
3. Therefore humans cannot be absolutely mind-independent of reality.
Being applied as a response to things possibly existing outside the perception of humans.

In that context his argument is about as God's eye view as possible.

Nothing exists that humans do not perceive. Nothing would exist without humans. Nothing exists outside the experience of humans (and never has).

That's God talk.

An agnostic opinion, like Kant's, would not be God talk, on that issue. He never seems to notice that he goes beyond Kant as far as ontology and proclaims things he cannot possibly know, given his own epistemology.
Atla
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 7:04 am As usual, different things stand out for me and you in VA's posts. I tackle the oddity of his syllolgism in the other thread and note that it actually goes in the other direction from his usual argument.
Syllogisms are based on logic, but VA can't process logic. He has never written down or cognized a syllogism in his life. He just imitates us by placing three sentences next to each other.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 7:04 am Nothing exists that humans do not perceive. Nothing would exist without humans. Nothing exists outside the experience of humans (and never has).

That's God talk.
That is a strawman again.
I did not state such plain statements,
"Nothing exists that humans do not perceive.
Nothing would exist without humans.
Nothing exists outside the experience of humans (and never has)."

If I were to say more, it would have to be accompanied by more detail explanations.

What I had argued is this:

Philosophical realists make the following claim;
Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder. WIKI
I demonstrate the above claim is impossible based on the syllogism I presented.

I insist the syllogism is valid.
It is also very sound because a philosophical realist cannot demonstrate nor justify his claim based on reality.
PH tried to bring in Natural Science, but the Natural Science that arrive at its conclusion is conditioned upon a human-based framework and system with its transcendental grounds [OP].
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8533
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 7:35 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 7:04 am As usual, different things stand out for me and you in VA's posts. I tackle the oddity of his syllolgism in the other thread and note that it actually goes in the other direction from his usual argument.
Syllogisms are based on logic, but VA can't process logic. He has never written down or cognized a syllogism in his life. He just imitates us by placing three sentences next to each other.
I certainly respect a global dismissal of VAs syllogism, but I enjoy noticing where the details lead. It is almost complete chaos in there coupled with in context. That this isn't noticed by him is amazing. Did he notice that he reversed the dependence? Not that that's wrong in itself, but why here, now? Did he consider his verb choice, opt for the past tense, forget what the verb means as a relation between those nouns it connects? Why bring up the God's eye view after claiming knowledge of noumena and supposedly being a Kantian empirical realist? That is expressing certainty about what is beyond his experiencing. I'd call it trolling, though that would entail he's a genius. A short syllogism with what would then be a whole batch of little jokes to set people off.
Atla
Posts: 9936
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 9:22 am
Atla wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 7:35 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 7:04 am As usual, different things stand out for me and you in VA's posts. I tackle the oddity of his syllolgism in the other thread and note that it actually goes in the other direction from his usual argument.
Syllogisms are based on logic, but VA can't process logic. He has never written down or cognized a syllogism in his life. He just imitates us by placing three sentences next to each other.
I certainly respect a global dismissal of VAs syllogism, but I enjoy noticing where the details lead. It is almost complete chaos in there coupled with in context. That this isn't noticed by him is amazing. Did he notice that he reversed the dependence? Not that that's wrong in itself, but why here, now? Did he consider his verb choice, opt for the past tense, forget what the verb means as a relation between those nouns it connects? Why bring up the God's eye view after claiming knowledge of noumena and supposedly being a Kantian empirical realist? That is expressing certainty about what is beyond his experiencing. I'd call it trolling, though that would entail he's a genius. A short syllogism with what would then be a whole batch of little jokes to set people off.
I didn't really dismiss VA's syllogism because he never presented one. He can't comprehend what a syllogism is. He just placed three sentences next to each other.

He doesn't understand what it means that details lead somewhere, because leading somewhere is a logical thing. So he can't notice such things either. The amazing part to me is how someone can completely lack logic.

How could he notice that he reserved a dependence, when he never had a concept of the original dependence in the first place?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8533
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Transcendental Ground of Science

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 9:57 am How could he notice that he reserved a dependence, when he never had a concept of the original dependence in the first place?
Yes, his meaning shifts. He's a bricoleur of the thoughts of others. So, when he grabs from one argument out there, his 'dependence' wanders into a new meaning.
Post Reply