3. Kant to be invited to discuss Climate Change (칸트에게 묻다)
Concept: it looks everything to us
I would say concept is everything for us to do scientific research and even engineering studies. If we want to be a scientist, we have to know how to make concepts within us; concepts obtained within us toward the Nature are real condition to be scientist.
What is the concept?
Concept is terminology for categories of representations within our mind in accordance with our understanding of thoughts that occur with regard to an object in outer world (i.e., Nature); this is why Goethe stressed importance of observation of objects in Nature. As scientist for Nature, if you simply takes a sample from the Nature, measure using some cutting-edge apparatus (either chemical or biological or physical one) to get data, and publish those in journal, I would say you are not scientist, instead, you are trained technician (of course, that technician is fairly worthy for some purposes, but, it is certain he is not a scientist). In university level or higher level of research education, we learn (have to) how to contact with Nature, which means ways to sense objects existed in the Nature, and we use our sensibilities to bring the objects into us, with forms of intuitions (called as scientific intuitions). Here, the sensibility of us is defined as our own senses and also apparatus which belong to us (if the apparatus are not belonging to you, as one of your sensibility, those are not yours and subsequently you can not make any intuitions on you). Once we have intuitions from the objects, using our sensibility, we have to carefully, once again, observe those for a while, to keep those and to make some thoughts out of the intuitions.
With this procedure, from objects to intuitions, and to thoughts, whatever we intentionally notice this or not, those surely occur in us. However, I would emphasize the results are very different from observations between with conscience (i.e., with practices and customs) and without conscience (i.e., without practices and customs), especially for scientist (to some degrees for non-scientific persons as well). Every early in the morning, we can practice with objects around us, such as flower, bee, current of sea, flow of river, tree, cloud, and anything in the Nature; try to get some intuitions from the object chosen by you, and let it stay within you for a while (even a few days, but, keep looking at those), and try to make some concepts in your mind. Sometimes, as scientist, we can borrow capacities from available scientific instruments (apparatus) for observation and according transferring. Now, we have representations of the concepts in our mind, which correspond to the objects to be seen by us (please remember we intentionally select those for the research).
With the representations, we can stop here for the scientific procedure to summarize or combine the representations to make our works as paper, note, or presentation, which is absolutely ours (actually this may be one part of ours because we use our sensibility and employ our understanding using our mind); here, I want to define this type of research procedure as CREATIVE, as opposed to mannerism type of research. For further steps from the representation of concepts, we may categorize the concepts using the four different aspects (Immanuel Kant, critique of the pure reason): 1. quantity (unity, plurality, totality), 2. quality (reality, negation, limitation), 3. relation (inherent vs subsistence, cause and effect, reciprocity), 4. modality (possibility vs impossibility,
existence vs non-existence, necessity vs contingency). An original object is generally divided into many folds (manifold); each fold is supposed to have more than one concept within us which may be explained, using one of the categories introduced by the Kant or our own category. For example, when we observe protozoa or bacteria in the Nakdong River (object of living organisms) and use all possible sensibilities, including our eyes, microscope, and analytic tools for surrounding water, then, we can sense the selected object and induce corresponding intuitions, along with the first sensible knowledges. During this knowledge related procedure, the object can be divided into many different folds to be observed, and to have corresponding intuitions. Then, we, scientists, use our scientific logic to convert the intuitions to scientific thoughts, and finally to scientific concepts which are our final goals. The concepts can be now categorized into some items listed above. With these concepts, we can criticize whether it is positive or negative, possible or impossible in a certain perspective, real vs imaginary, a certain cause and corresponding effect, necessary or contingent, and other logical categories. The explained and discussed concepts (i.e., manifolded concepts) become the our second knowledges.
Summary: there are two different scientific knowledges: the first is sensible knowledge, called (defined) as scientific intuition, and the second is logical knowledge, called (defined) as scientific concept. The first and second procedures utilize scientific manner (also called as sensibility) and scientific principles (also called as understanding), respectively, to obtain each corresponding knowledge.
However, there is another type of concept, which we can meet in Mathematics. Mathematician never make any concept first prior to a definition; based on the definition, they construct corresponding concept. This step is different from a method taken by a natural scientist, who observes an object first, then, produces concept. Another difference between the two concepts from different scientists is completeness of their concepts. Concept of mathematician is complete, i.e., it is not easy to be any further changed or modified as time goes on as preceding definition is not erroneous. Meanwhile, concept of natural scientist never stands still, thus, always changes with time and as conditions influencing and relating vary.
Categories of Concepts in Science
Aristotle and Kant proposed the following categories of concepts that can occur when we observe objects in outer world, through our sensibility, and make corresponding intuitions and subsequently understand, using scientific principles, to finally make the concepts (either categorized or not). As Kant mentioned in his book, it seems very useful for us to make concepts out of the World. Please recall scientific works are defined as making concepts, in proper ways with possible propositions. Each of the listed concepts has its own meaning, and exhibits own logic, thus, when we want to either analyze or even synthesize, we can efficiently use individual or combined forms of the following concepts.
An object (fact or occurrence or material) can be the only in a certain value; if the object can be observed with one body to make corresponding intuition and concept, it is desirable and best scenario. However, that type is not the case that we meet very often. The object is generally divided into many different manifolds which also have distinct individual sensible meanings. Once we begin analyze the object by dividing many meaningful manifolds; we may (or may not potentially) produce different values (intuitions and concepts, respectively) through our sensibility and in our mind. Then, let us suppose going back to a state before we subdivide (i.e., analyzing) the object. What happened? Can we say the combined one is automatically true if all the divided manifold is true? Or, to my surprise, are we interested in true of false of the combined one after combination of divided facts (or manifolded concepts), instead, just in the facts?
When we analyze one object, diving methodology is critical; i.e., when we divide the object into wrong manifolds (even one of those is wrong/false), we can not make a completeness from the manifolds for demonstration for truth. There is example for us to be confused; when we analyze one living organism for its activity, we should be careful not to use a functional gene as one sub-unit (i.e., one manifold) to be combined later as functional gene is another total object in the perspective of a concept related. Morphology and physiology may have their scientific values only when scientists look objects (e.g., living organisms) as both a whole and constituents having harmonic combination towards the whole.
(1) Unity (2) Plurality (3) Totality
1. Supposing that the Arabian numbers were not invented, how were the scientific consequences different? Conceptually design your world.
2. If sulfate reducing bacteria and Fe reducing bacteria, discussed in our previous class, may compete with each other, for organics (i.e., their foods; electron donors), there may be conditions between the two, with respect to competition and/or reciprocity. Then, describe possible new realities, in any forms.
Previously, we investigated quantitative concepts, then, the quality concepts are related to both matters and ways how the matters are arranged for the concepts building. When we observe object in outer world, if we can sense it using our senses (sensibility) and make an intuition out of it, that can be categorized into one having reality concept.
When reality is combined with negation, limitation can be formed.
(4) Reality: Chair can be made of wood. Concept of chair, as reality, did not exist long time ago, then, somebody invented the concept of chair. Wood (object) is transformed to Chair (Reality) as both are seen and touchable (i.e., sensible). Flower, as an object, can be observed and then represented into a reality, such as reproduction organ or seed or other forms of the plant (i.e., metamorphosis); they are all sensible. Similarly, bacteria into DNA or functional genes, fluoride into toothpaste. However, consider time against watch; for this set, time is not an object, but, time indicated with a watch may be reality.
In the movie of 'Matrix', within the virtual world, Keanu Reeves would touch a chair as he thinks it is not a real chair (as object), but, it is a chair, as reality, because he can touch, even in the virtual world.
(5) Negation: is determination that expresses non-existence of something in substance. (6) Limitation
1. Can we categorize DNA as concept of reality? Please explain your thoughts.
2. With your answer with DNA (for both yes or no), how would you define scientific works with DNA of living organisms?
This category is the one which we can most frequently meet in natural science, especially concept of cause and effect. Through observing objects, we experience. The objects and resulting experiences are, of course, related, but, they are different, intuitively and conceptually. Object can go up to the concept, but, experience does not. However, there may be one way for us to get concept from experience; experience has appearance from corresponding intuition of an object. We may find some regularities and/or rules with the appearance, then, we can make concepts out of the regularities and rules, which is very similar to some of arts in aesthetics written by Hegel, conceptually.
(7) Subsistence vs Inherency: are existence of substance and type (motion, color, how sensible) of the substance.
(8) Causality (Cause and Effect) (9) Reciprocity
Experience itself is not object, rather subjective necessity, and is one representation made with many objects; by the way, habit is object (habit with object is an exclusively objective process, without any subjectivity. However, experience may be entangled with subjectivity of a observer (as subject)). Now, we want to observe an experience to make intuitions using our sensibility because we can not use our senses to observe the representation from the experience. Prior to this, we have to make a virtual object (concept of existence) corresponding and related to the experience, importantly with presupposition(s), then, use our sensibility to make intuitions and concepts. Why? because representation of experience can not produce any object. Upon the virtual object with presupposition, then, finally the experience can be possible one for use to make concepts (i.e., concept of possibility). If we can not make a virtual object for our experience, then, the experience, even if this is real (concept of reality), it is categorized
into Non-Possibility concept. Please, recall the difference in concept between Reality and Existence; reality is referred to object we can directly sense from the outer world, and existence is kind of synthesizing object (i.e., virtual object) from our experience, based on appropriate presupposition.
Concept of necessity is related to the concept of cause and effect, from the Category III Relation.
(10) Possibility (related to both reality and existence)
(11) Existence: Global warming is one example of existence concept which is not sensible but still exists through representation, and can affect us through environment. God is another example. Eutrophication in rivers is another example of existence which is not sensible but influencing to be present; there is a virtual object from the outer world, through occurring problems, then it is analyzed into many different components, such as N, P, algae, temperature, and from the components, corresponding appearances (i.e., manifold) occur. The manifold can be combined into a synthesized unity which should be homogeneous and becomes a concept of eutrophication.
(12) Necessity vs Contingency
1. If two persons do gardening today, in activities as experience versus habit, how can you define their activities?
2. For every concept, how is time involved? Describe role of time to characterize the concepts.
Combination of Manifolds: Use of Existence concept for Experience
When can we say certain research finding is significant? When it is connected to industrialization or contains valuable products? The scientific terminology, significant, can be used research object (including scientific experience) is finally connected to corresponding CONCEPT(S) which is explained and categorized in the previous section. We have been using the term (significance) so many times when explaining our scientific research results unconsciously. As Aristotle mentioned geometry for requisite to enter his academy, Goethe similarly observation of the nature. Observing the nature is one of scientific experiences. If the observed object can be sensible (e.g., tangible), it is relatively straightforward, but, with non-sensible object, the object should be analyzed based on fundamental definition of analysis in methodology. We need to sub-divide the object obtained from our observation into many different parts (called manifold for mere summation) which are supposed to be sensible differently from their origin, object. This process seems similar to the Calculus proposed by the Newton, but, it is different in a perspective that divided components are inter-connected each other with certain property of intensive degree. Once being divided, each component within the manifold is subjected to exhibit representation to provide its own appearance. Subsequent appearances are important in scientific works, with respect to logical methodology as not manifold themselves but these appearances are actually inter-connected with certain
degree of intensiveness. For example, we can select water for research, but, we can actually intuit through touch, taste, and other ways; water is object for experience, while feeling and taste are corresponding represented appearances of the divided manifold of water. I think Kant supposed this type of step is different from prior knowledge work, like 5+7 equals 12 (purely priori), which may be also supported by fact that appearances of manifold are inter-connected (nexus) differently from components 5 and 7. Then, the appearances have to be combined into one which is defined as synthetic unity. For this, it is important to find out regularity out of the manifold types (i.e., among appearances) of intuitions (i.e., before the synthesis; after synthesis, it turns out to be an object and subsequent intuition to be sensible). Found regularity is used to make the virtual intuition. The synthesis is similar to work of painting artists to draw abstract out of their observation (the work is placed on the outer sense (or intuition). The opposite work can be found in music, which we discuss in the later section.
Figure. One concept connectivity example for an experience, through manifold and combination synthesis.
Figure. Example of global warming issue: from experience to the understanding.
It should be noted that synthesized representation, as unity, be the same (at least very similar) as the original object as they have to be both homogeneous, with necessity (i.e., necessary causality plus natural). If the synthesized one is heterogeneous, it is not guaranteed the original object, prior to analysis, is the same as the combined (with interactional principle) reality or existence, but is simply combined manifold (i.e., heterogeneous).
1. We have water in liquid and then it becomes ice in a certain period time. Please recall these are defined as identical from the supposition with universal time. Now we have two appearances (manifold), which is an experience. We need a synthetic unity to be thought under a concept.
2. How we can scientifically prove existence of a higher world, in our mind, for example God?
3. Scientists found some regularities in behaviors of desert locust in Africa. How can the found regularity be used for a new concept (i.e., to be used for solution)?
4. If one scientist opposes to use the analysis method, how different is his/her approaching method with an object or objects? For example, consideration, reflection, and combination of his observations.
Principles of Scientific Experience
Scientific experience starts with observation of the nature, and ends with concepts. An object is subsumed under a concept; the concept must contain the object. And, the object is homogeneous with the concept. For example, round plate for a food with concept circle. As discussed in the previous section, manifold (heterogeneous) step may
be used to convert non-sensible object (experience) to sensible unity, thus, adoption of concepts of possibility and existence is efficient to analyze the experience.
With each of the manifold from experience, we do intuit scientifically (by our senses or other scientific measurement apparatus; please recall our senses are also scientific tools, of course) and also have to represent to make corresponding appearance. As scientist, the intuition is not enough with scientific research; if we simply (without concepts) combine all the intuited results to make a research result or conclusion, we may not call that as a scientific work. We can not make through thoroughgoing works which are scientific concepts directly from both sensible intuition and time themselves, instead, from represented appearances after synthesis for an unity (or totalized plurality). Appearances can be processed in both outer, objectively, and inner, subjectively, senses (so called) to provide representations of experiences; the processes touch our capacity of knowledge, even with ones not directly related to corresponding experiences. Represented appearances are supposed to be anyhow combined into one unity so that they can be finally transformed into concepts. Combination has two different methods, first, composition, and second, connection (nexus); composition is performed through mere summation of components (i.e., aggregation) in which connection and/or interaction do not exist among the components, for which we define the scientific term, Extensive. If there are some interactions among the components, we differently define the combination as intensive coalition, but with supposition of homogeneity of the components, for which we define as Intensive. We can envision calcium oxides having homogeneous characters accumulate on a carbon surface without any connectivity between them (i.e., extensive) and with some interaction (let me say hydrogen bonding, for example; intensive combination). Meanwhile, connection type of combination can be made among heterogeneous components, which we denote this as dynamic combination opposed to the previously explained mathematical combination. Dynamic combination always bears nexus between components. Scientifically when we imagine some nexuses (connection with interactions), we have to have time underlying our determinations of the nexuses.
Time is presupposition of all knowledge underlying most of the concepts even time itself in science can not be intuited to be transformed to a certain concept. Thus, scientific experience makes some concepts with helps of time. We may use time in three ways; first, permanence, second, succession, third, simultaneity. Permanence in time is a starting point for every objectives (even subjectives) to be compared, i.e., we need a third thing which is permanent to compare two things. Without a standard or scale, comparison itself is impossible to be conducted. For example, total amount of carbon in the Earth is maintained (it does not arise or vanish within the Earth boundary); without this presupposition, research of carbon cycles in the Earth is meaningless. For example, a novel prize laureate in chemistry made carbon nano material which may (also may not) be helpful for mankind. Even though the structure is new but comprising carbon itself does not change in it, instead, carbons are combined (i.e., combination) either intensively or extensively (what do you think?). Every scientific research has to have at least a permanence in time, otherwise, it may reach empty rational in space which we can not have any concepts out of our observations and resulted intuitions.
We have to rely on succession in time to make connectivities among series of appearances (as manifold may be connected in time only after they are represented as appearance) out of intuitions. Logics underlying time succession are related to concepts of cause and effect (causality). As encountered in many examples, time lap is not as important as order of time in causality concept. One preceding appearance is cause of the following appearance which is effect, thus, causing appearances in a manifold are connected with effected appearances in the manifold. If a scientific experience is not an object to be simply sensible, the experience is subjected to analysis process to be transferred into manifold, then, scientists will have to try to find causes and effects between the manifolded appearances. When the substances or appearances are perceived within the cause and effect, they never arise and vanish, but only alter with cause (alteration). Arising and vanish can not be possible perception. There may be cases where the causes and effects are easy to reveal; for examples, when fishes in a lake died, we can envision the phenomena as one of manifold (i.e., as appearance with tangible fact) from production of certain toxins from presence of algae in the lake. Or, we can also take somewhat more complicated chains of causes for a final effect: e.g., nitrogen-containing compounds from a natural wetland which are global warming gases, can be connected with many different nitrogen compounds, from ammonium ions, nitrate, nitrite, nitrous oxide, and others. From our definitions, lake risk with respect to fishes, and global warming related to nitrogen may be our experiences to be observed, listed explaining steps are the above mentioned appearances comprising of corresponding manifold. If the experiences can be scientific problems to be solved by analytic procedures to at the end get to a concept (or concepts), their divided appearances should be connected in succession in time with the causality. Otherwise, it is not easy to organize the research observations logically (i.e., to get to concept). Among connectivities (nexuses), there may be (or even should be) a connection (i.e., connection of connections) using some patterns, such as regularity (such as symmetry and periodic) or accidental (to be contingent, but, to be able to be scientifically defined); we already define this as "intensive with degree, as opposed to extensive". We differentiated appearance from object (e.g., toxicity from terminology risk, chemical transformation from global warming). We may further need to introduce substance in addition to appearance as appearance needs substance to be scientifically intuited. With appearance of toxicity in lake, nitrogen forms, including ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, nitrous oxide, and others, are substances which are intuited and/or scientifically measurable. For more examples, wood is object and fire with wood may be substance, water versus its density and temperature, desert locust versus its color and moving patterns. We call 'subsistent' for Existence of substance, and 'inherent' for type/mode of substance. The latter can also be called as accident.
Last character of time with respect to appearances in experience is simultaneity (at the same). If two appearances may be possible to be sensible at the same time, they have to share space (i.e., different space area), which gives us ways of community and reciprocity, with influencing and interaction (not cause and effect); we have to be careful to know that only appearances can be connected for reciprocity based on simultaneity, not objects. When we have scientific experiences, the experiences are certainly originated from our observations, in the forms of intuitions, but, they are transformed to appearances comprising of substances to be perceived for empirical knowledges, as
defined as perception. Differently from the cause and effect, reciprocity always employs interaction as appearances in scientific experience have to share space at the time (recall it is not object but appearance/substance). Also, be noted that some appearances are not easy to distinguish the reciprocity from the cause and effect; for examples, Kant introduced two cases, firstly, a ball drops on cushion, and secondly, glass filled with water.
After all these scientific manifold processes for experience, the manifold with substances and appearances has to be synthesized into a unity, as defined as Synthetic Unity, before transformed to concept(s). Synthetic unity is also an unity after an experience is exposed to analysis for manifold followed by synthesis; with synthesis, we always have to be subjective (we can not help this, actually we need it) based on objective senses. Now, the synthetic unity is transformed into corresponding schema, then, can be scientifically understood to produce concept(s); please recall scientific understanding should be based on logic principles to be able to use the concepts categories. However, if we can not make any concept with our empirical perception through understanding for schema of synthetic unity, we define corresponding experience as empty, not object but appearance and substance. Conversely, when we can reach concept(s) from experience, we can say "significant" experience.
Scientists tried to store old generation of male sea monkeys and marry a few next generation of female sea monkeys, and found bad effects in their new births production with toxic materials which they did not expect. Please discuss this research with concept of succession in time.
I personally think (through my understanding of nature where I live and rely on) that ethics of scientists always lie on logics of the succession of appearances in time, through causality for connectivity. Different scientists may have different logics of cause and effect, of course, which gives different scientific ethics. Provide your opinion with selected example(s) (construction of dam, development of 4 major rivers, and others).
3.Microbiologists sometimes modify genetic information (DNA sequence) of micro- organisms to obtain some useful products which are to be believed beneficial to humankind. Provide your explanation and opinions with this, using the cause and effect.
4. Discuss biodiversity issue using the logics introduced in this section.
Method of Reflection with Scientific Experience
Even the process for the scientific ways of research discussed up to now employs synthesis, but it can be considered as analytic which includes manifold and synthetic unity for empirical knowledge. Final products from this process are categorized concepts from understanding based on rules, as defined. In general, concepts are not enough for almost all scientific problematics (here, problematics is a concept of the possibility). Next step in research after the concepts is reflection; reflection is defined as a state of our scientific capability which can produce certain conditions under which concepts can be elaborated. If we have experiences (objects) to be finally converted to concepts, there
are two ways to take action of understanding; first, we bring our understanding to the manifold, secondly, we understand for synthetic unity. For the latter, it is clear for us to use rule(s) to the unity. However, it is questionable whether we can use certain rules to look into the manifold to make corresponding concepts which can be further combined into a higher concept (i.e., combination of concepts). For the combination of concepts to make a higher concept, we need to find connectivity (or by comparison) among the concepts of the manifold. Combination may be done by finding, among those, identity or difference, and agreement or opposition; with this, combination seems similar to simplification and it actually does but to a higher concept though. Objects identity was already discussed in time with space. Even two objects are different, corresponding appearances may be identical. Even two appearances are different, corresponding concepts may be identical. The two different concepts agree in a perceptive, they can be harmonized into a higher concept. Even the two different concepts having opposition can be harmonized. A concept is at last understood, from scientific experience, after the long process. Then, we need a scientific knowledge (if our starting experience is problematic, this knowledge may be solution to that) which can be subsumed under a condition related to the concept (Hypothesis). The knowledge hypothesized is determined by predicate of the rule, 'scientific reason', to make our conclusion. Making the concept, hypothesis, and conclusion relies on the rule which is from the categorized concepts, but, the first step is different from the last two in logics with analysis versus synthesis. Please recall that synthesis implies deduction, elucidation, which is scientific logic to be established by going beyond the limits obtained from our empirical observations based on sensibilities; Kant defined this as judgement and reason. This synthesis (expansion) will be more discussed in the latter sections of the book.
More explanation: On the connection among the manifold (either appearances and concepts), we have discussed identity against difference, and agreement against opposition. Here, in order to help ourselves to effectively use the connectivity, we need to employ quantity and/or quality of the connection, including regularity, irregularity, and accident. For example, if we want to take 3 elements out of 5 elements, we use the rule, 5x4x3/(3x2), which is a regularity. Another example in this category we can take is calyx of plants which is made by concentrating leaves; many leaves are combined into a point to make a calyx, then, extend to the stamen and corolla (flower). Between the former and the latter examples, there is one big difference; for the latter, there is exemption, such as tulip which does not have any calyx. With calyx, leaf can be transformed directly into the corolla and stamen as well.
Lastly, before going to next sections, we had better discuss on the Nothing (concepts of empty and impossible), as Kant did. There are 4 different types for nothing to be thought. Firstly, if we have a concept but corresponding object is not sensible, then, no intuition (i.e., non-sensible) can be found, thus, the concept is empty. Certain fundamental forces (almost impossible to be sensible) are general examples (Empty (if any) concept without an object, named by Kant). Secondly, there is an object without a concept, like darkness or shadow, thus, it is almost impossible to be sensed or confusingly sensible (Empty object without a concept, by Kant). Thirdly, there is mere intuition without either subject or object to be sensible, such number and time in mathematics (Empty intuition without an object, by Kant). Fourthly, take an example of rectilinear figure suggested by Kant,
thus, we have a figure to see which may be an object, but, it is very difficult to have a concept from here, thus, it is, by Kant, Empty object without a concept. Also in scientific researches, there might be experiences or problematics for us to have to use these concepts of Nothing. Try to take your examples, if possible.
Read the section number 1 through number 10 in the Metamorphosis of Plants, by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and find his comments or words to describe the "analysis and synthesis" for knowledges.
If We were in a complete darkness and open our eyes, do we sense something or not, compared to closing our eyes?