Theme 1. Theory of knowledge and theory of science

1. In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition."

In my opinion that main idea that statement is that relying on just what we see leads to confusion. For example, if our cognition conforms the objects, we must still think that the Earth is flat as it is impossible to observe (without special equipment and experiment) that it is actually round. “Objects must conform to our cognition” this point means that we should find the solution by letting the object to correspond to our cognition. In that way we will get accurate information about the object.

2. At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

I think that Socrates’s point is that everyone feels individually and sees things differently, so we cannot get knowledge based just our senses. Socrates illustrates it with example of taste of wine that changes depending on his health.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments (Wikipedia). Thus, it is correct to say that Socrates supports the idea that just independent experiment is source of knowledge. Just through the experiment it is possible to get conception about the object.