Kant Yearbook 9 (1):43-62 (2017)

Authors
Nathaniel Goldberg
Washington and Lee University
Abstract
Kant makes two claims in the Critique of Pure Reason that anticipate concerns of twentieth-century philosophy of science. The first, that the understanding and sensibility are constitutive of knowledge, while reason is responsible for transcendental illusion, amounts to his solution to Karl Popper’s “problem” of demarcating science from pseudoscience. The second, that besides these constitutive roles of the understanding and sensibility, reason is itself needed to discover new empirical knowledge, anticipates Hans Reichenbach’s distinction between the “contexts” of justification and discovery. Unlike Reichenbach, however, who thinks that there can be a “logic” only of justification, Kant provides what amounts to a logic of discovery. Though Kant’s broader concerns are not Popper’s or Reichenbach’s, using theirs as framing devices reveals two otherwise unnoticed things about the Critique of Pure Reason. First, besides its general epistemological and metaphysical aims, the Critique lays groundwork for the twentieth century’s specialized field of the philosophy of science. Second, Kant’s solution to the demarcation problem contradicts his logic of discovery, so in this instance the Critique is too ambitious.
Keywords Kant  Popper  Reichenbach  logic of justification  logic of discovery
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1515/kantyb-2017-0003
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,605
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Brandom’s Demarcation of Logic.John Macfarlane - 2008 - Philosophical Topics 36 (2):55-62.
The Demarcation Problem: A (Belated) Response to Laudan.Massimo Pigliucci - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 9.
Loki's Wager and Laudan's Error.On Genuine & Territorial Demarcation - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 79.
System-Problems in Kant.Zelko Loparic - 1988 - Synthese 74 (1):107 - 140.
Has Laudan Killed the Demarcation Problem?Kirsten Walsh - 2009 - Dissertation, University of Melbourne
Parapsychology and the Demarcation Problem.Robert L. Morris - 1987 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 30 (3):241 – 251.
The Rhetorical Construction of Science: Demarcation as Rhetorical Practice.Charles Alan Taylor - 1990 - Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Scientific Discovery: That-What’s and What-That's.Samuel Schindler - 2015 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 2.
The Problem of Demarcation: History and Future.Thomas Nickles - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 101.
Two Ways of Studying the History of Culture.Leonid M. Batkin & M. M. Bahhtin - 1988 - Russian Studies in Philosophy 26 (4):6-28.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-10-12

Total views
14 ( #716,370 of 2,461,470 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #298,755 of 2,461,470 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes