pimpmyhellion · 2 points ·
A few comments from a Philosophy nerd - and not a particularly fond-of-Kant-one: the "validity" Kant talks about is not the validity of common language, but is meant as validity to found a scientifically sure knowledge. Kant's proposal is actually very complicated and interesting, and while it's not the same paradigm as contemporary science, it's not far either: but in any case he absolutely doesn't mean to scrap all the sensory data out of the equation, just to correct them with rational structures - this is akin to how modern experiments are carried out: nobody takes seriously a purely empirical data, as correlation and causation are often indistinguishable without a valid framework.
Furthermore, may I add, to say that the empirical senses of the animal were the medium of evolution is simply false: as other users pointed out it is the senses of the predators that acted as a selective pressure on the animal. This is important because the criteria here is "to pass", not to be an exact replica: in the image you showed that's actually crazily impressive, but for every perfect replica there is in the animal kingdom, there are a whole train of "decent" or "passable" imitation of nature, that are good enough to fool the predators but not in any sense of the word "exact". Being approximate - even if sometimes stunningly impressive - still the passive criteria of the senses (of the predator) is not enough to think that senses alone gives you a solid foundation.
That's my 2 cents at least. Have a good day
Furthermore, may I add, to say that the empirical senses of the animal were the medium of evolution is simply false: as other users pointed out it is the senses of the predators that acted as a selective pressure on the animal. This is important because the criteria here is "to pass", not to be an exact replica: in the image you showed that's actually crazily impressive, but for every perfect replica there is in the animal kingdom, there are a whole train of "decent" or "passable" imitation of nature, that are good enough to fool the predators but not in any sense of the word "exact". Being approximate - even if sometimes stunningly impressive - still the passive criteria of the senses (of the predator) is not enough to think that senses alone gives you a solid foundation.
That's my 2 cents at least. Have a good day
2,391 
replydetachattach picture