Well, I've always been a man of science, and science is based or proven by empirical evidence... so his views that truths can be obtained without any always bugged me. So that's probably why I remember.

I have never studied it and never will unfourunatly.

Although I'm very fascinated by it and actually spend alot of time thinking about life, the meaning, why we're here, what's beyond space, the meaning of infinite and alot of other stuff. As said, fascinated.

i have very much..almost all of them..and still are..
but from a religious point of view.

I think what he's saying is pretty simple, eg

1. Ted is a batchelor
2. Batchelors are unmarried men
__________________
Therefore, Ted is an unmarried man.

Proofs can be gained from logic when 1) premises are true, and 2) conclusion follows premises. The only issue arises when one attempts to prove his premises true - something that Philosophy tells you can never be done (only in situations like the one above, where premises are true by definition). Philosophy will also tell you that no proof can come from science due to the very fact it is based on emperical observation - only through maths and pure logic can true proofs be formed.

Anyhow I studied philosophy in year 11 and 12 during school and was lucky enough to have an exceptional teacher (who didn't just posit statements like, 'Why are we here?', then force a group discussion on us all for the remainder of class). The courses covered everything from morality to the applied philosophy of science and the mind - studying everyone from Murdoch, Sartre and Aristotle to Kuhn and Turing. Philosophy was by far my favourite subject, and happily my best one too.

You are right Germaniac. The idea of a single man is embedded in the meaning of bachelor.

Germaniac, I just came from a 3 hour exam so I'm a little tired, but here goes...

First I misused the word “proof”… I didn’t mean it as mathematical proofs sense… I think Kant's angle was that truths can be obtained by intuition without empirical evidence.

Again… it’s been a long time and maybe I’m confusion ideas/authors!?

But here are some comments about your post...

The above is true and I know what you mean, but I don't think that's what Kant meant...

Also, be careful with this type of logic, sometimes these types of statements can be incomplete and thus can be bend to make any conclusion... i.e.

1) Humans have legs
2) Chickens have legs
__________________
Therefore, humans are chickens... ?

Logic is not bullet-proof… without sufficient proper data/axioms, logical conclusions can be incomplete/false.

Agreed, purely emprical-based ideas are theories, not proofs... again, wrong choice of words before.

The whole idea that math is not a science is very debatable.... therefore if math were to be considered as a science, the statement that proofs cannot come from science is false.

But that's beside my point with Kant. I am not an expert in logic, but I’m pretty sure you cannot postulate a proof about the existence of God… besides it’ll never make it into a theorem, since you need to “take it on faith.”

I forget Kant proof about God, but as an example... I remember reading once about the “Cosmological argument”, a proof based on the concept of causality that supposedly proves the existence of God… and it was logical until they referred to God as the “first cause”, why? Why all of a sudden do you have a cause that is not the effect of something previous?! Just because you can’t have infinity (that is the postulation)?? Says who, I think that's an invalid assumption?! I just don’t buy that! Sure I can buy that something created the universe, but what created the thing that created the universe… and what created the one thing before that? Etc.

But that stems from the fact that philosophical logic is not necessarily always on the same page as mathematical logic (there’s infinity in math).

To me, things that cannot be proven mathematically must be proven empirically… especially when dealing with subjects like God.

Anyhow, that’s it for me for tonight, I’m tired

Sorry for not getting back to you for so long, hope the exam went well....

Refer to my previous point, where I stated that in order for something to be proved through logic,
1) premises must be true, and
2) conclusion must follow premises.
In your above example, 2 (conclusion must follow premises) is not the case - a logical conclusion would be 'Thus, both chickens and humans have legs'. In order for your stated conclusion to follow the premises, a third premise would have to be added, along the lines of

3) If two creatures share the same body part, then they are the same creature

But that premise is false, and thus 1 ('premises must be true') is not followed. Trickier than you think


Maths and science, from a philosophical perspective, are two different entities - one is based on mathematical logic while the other, fundamentally, on emperical (ie, 'subjective') observation.

This is stretching it back many years but I think I remember Kant's argument - and while it was logically sound (ie, it was valid; the conclusions followed the premises) the premises themselves were not necessarily true, and thus his argument in its entirety can never be prooved thus.

You are exactly right - although I wouldn't agree on your choice of word with 'invalid assumption' ('unfounded' would be more appropriate) - as I just said then, the problem with these arguments, such as the Cosmological and I think Teleological is that they are formed on premises which can never be proved - through science, logic, mathematics or otherwise. When attacking that argument in a test (back in the day) I think I remember stating something alongs the lines that the 'Big Bang' could just as easily replace 'God' as the first cause in the argument.


Again, careful with your use of the concept 'proof', but I understand what you're saying, and I agree Just on that, I think there's a common consensus of these terms amongst the philosophical community
Proofs - when dealing with pure logic or mathematics
Evidence - when dealing with science, and
Reasons - when dealing with religious matters
Not sure if I agree entirely with it, but I think it's OK