Kant on Experiment

  • Alberto VanzoEmail author
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 28)


This paper discusses Immanuel Kant’s views on the role of experiments in natural science, focusing on their relationship with hypotheses, laws of nature, and the heuristic principles of scientific enquiry. Kant’s views are contrasted with the philosophy of experiment that was first sketched by Francis Bacon and later developed by Robert Boyle and Robert Hooke.

Kant holds that experiments are always designed and carried out in the light of hypotheses. Hypotheses are derived from experience on the basis of a set of heuristic principles. The function of experiments is testing hypotheses in order to either reject them as false, or else to transform them into empirical laws of nature. To this end, we must integrate the hypotheses that are confirmed by experiments with the a priori principles which are the foundations of natural science.

Compared with Bacon, Boyle, and Hooke, Kant has elaborate views on the one hand, on how our theoretical and pre-theoretical assumptions bear on experimental practice, and on the other hand, on how the results of experimental activity can be integrated with theories to advance our knowledge of nature. However, Kant overstates the dependence of experiments on theories.


Pure Reason Causal Principle Heuristic Principle Metaphysical Principle Transcendental Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adickes, E. 1924. Kant als Naturforscher, Vols. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Anstey, P.R. 2005. Experimental versus speculative natural philosophy. In The science of nature in the seventeenth century: Patterns of change in early modern natural philosophy, ed. P.R. Anstey and J.A. Schuster, 215–242. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Anstey, P.R. Unpublished. The Bacon-Boyle-Hooke view of experiment. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  4. Bacon, F. 1620. Novum organon. In The Oxford Francis Bacon, Vol. 11, ed. G. Rees and M. Wakely (2004), 48–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Birch, T. 1756–57. The history of the Royal Society of London for improving of natural knowledge, from its first rise, 4 Vols. London: Millar.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, R. 1662. Defence against Linus. In The works of Robert Boyle, ed. M. Hunter and E.B. Davis (1999), Vol. 3, 3–107. London: Pickering and Chatto.Google Scholar
  7. Boyle, R. 1666. The text of Robert Boyle’s ‘Designe about Natural History’. In Robert Boyle occasional papers, no. 3, ed. M. Hunter and P.R. Anstey (2008). Retrieved 22 November 2011, from
  8. Butts, R.E. 1961. Hypothesis and explanation in Kant’s philosophy of science. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 43: 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butts, R.E. 1962. Kant on hypotheses in the ‘Doctrine of Method’ and in the Logik. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 44: 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capozzi, M. 2001. Kant e la logica, Vol. 1. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
  11. Conrad, E. 1994. Kants Logikvorlesungen als neuer Schlüssel zur Architektonik der Kritik der reinen Vernunft: Die Ausarbeitung der Gliederungsentwürfe in den Logikvorlesungen als Auseinandersetzung mit der Tradition. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  12. Crusius, C.A. 1747. Weg zur Gewißheit und Zuverlässigkeit der menschlichen Erkenntniss. Leipzig: Gleditsch.Google Scholar
  13. D’Alembert, J. 1751. Discours Préliminaire. In Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, Vol. 1, ed. D. Diderot and J. d’Alembert (1751–77), i–xlv. Paris: Briasson.Google Scholar
  14. Daries, J.G. 1776. Weg zur Wahrheit. Frankfurt a.O: Strauß.Google Scholar
  15. Erxleben, J.C.P. 1772. Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre. Dieterich: Göttingen.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, M. 1992. Causal laws and the foundations of natural science. In The Cambridge companion to Kant, ed. P. Guyer, 161–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaukroger, S. 2006. The emergence of a scientific culture: Science and the shaping of modernity, 1210–1685. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gloy, K. 1996. Kants Philosophie und das Experiment. In Kant in der Diskussion der Moderne, ed. G. Schönrich and Y. Kato, 64–91. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  19. Gloy, K. 2009. Die Bedeutung des Experiments bei Kant für die neuzeutliche Naturwissenschaft. In Kants Philosophie der Natur: Ihre Entwicklung im Opus postumum und ihre Wirkung, ed. E.-O. Onnasch, 189–201. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guyer, P. 1990. Reason and reflective judgment: Kant on the significance of systematicity. Noûs 24: 17–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hennings, J.C. 1774. Kritisch historisches Lehrbuch der theoretischen Philosophie. Leipzig: Weygand.Google Scholar
  22. Hooke, R. 1665. Micrographia: Some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses with observations and inquiries thereupon. London: Jo. Martyn and Ja. Allestry.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hooke, R. 1705. A general scheme, or idea of the present state of natural philosophy. In The posthumous works of Robert Hooke, ed. R. Waller, 1–70. London: Sam. Smith and Benj Walford.Google Scholar
  24. Hume, D. 1740. An abstract of a book lately published; entitled, a treatise of human nature. In A treatise of human nature, ed. D.F. Norton and M.J. Norton (2000). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kant, I. 1747. Gedanken von der wahren Schätzung der lebendigen Kräfte. In Kant 1900–, vol. 1, 1–181.Google Scholar
  26. Kant, I. 1763. Der einzig mögliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseins Gottes. In Kant 1900–, vol. 2, 63–163.Google Scholar
  27. Kant, I. 1781/1787. Kritik der reinen Vernunft, ed. J. Timmermann (1996). Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  28. Kant, I. 1783. Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können. In Kant 1900–, vol. 4, 253–383.Google Scholar
  29. Kant, I. 1786. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft. In Kant 1900–, vol. 4, 465–565.Google Scholar
  30. Kant, I. 1790. Kritik der Urteilskraft. In Kant 1900–, vol. 5, 165–485.Google Scholar
  31. Kant, I. 1793. Welches sind die wirklichen Fortschritte, die die Metaphysik seit Leibnizens und Wolf’s Zeiten in Deutschland gemacht hat? In Kant 1900–, vol. 20, 253–351.Google Scholar
  32. Kant, I. 1798a. Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht. In Kant 1900–, vol. 7, 117–333.Google Scholar
  33. Kant, I. 1798b. Der Streit der Fakultäten. In Kant 1900–, vol. 7, 1–115.Google Scholar
  34. Kant, I. 1800a. Immanuel Kants Logik: Ein Handbuch zu Vorlesungen. In Kant 1900–, vol. 9, 1–150.Google Scholar
  35. Kant, I. 1800b. Immanuel Kants physische Geographie. In Kant 1900–, vol. 9, 151–436.Google Scholar
  36. Kant, I. 1900–. Kant’s gesammelte Schriften, ed. Königlich Preußische (Deutsche) Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Reimer (later: de Gruyter).Google Scholar
  37. Kant, I. 1922. Briefwechsel. In Kant 1900–, Vols. 10–13.Google Scholar
  38. Kant, I. 1936–1938. Opus postumum. In Kant 1900–, Vols. 21–22.Google Scholar
  39. Kant, I. 1942. Erste Einleitung in die Kritik der Urteilskraft. In Kant 1900–, vol. 20, 193–251.Google Scholar
  40. Kant, I. 1961. Vorlesung Philosophische Enziklopädie. In Kant 1900–, vol. 29, 3–45.Google Scholar
  41. Kant, I. 1966a. Logik Blomberg. In Kant 1900–, vol. 24, 16–301.Google Scholar
  42. Kant, I. 1966b. Logik Busolt. In Kant 1900–, vol. 24, 608–686.Google Scholar
  43. Kant, I. 1966c. Logik Dohna-Wundlacken. In Kant 1900–, vol. 24, 687–784.Google Scholar
  44. Kant, I. 1966d. Logik Philippi. In Kant 1900–, vol. 24, 303–496.Google Scholar
  45. Kant, I. 1966e. Logik Pölitz. In Kant 1900–, vol. 24, 502–602.Google Scholar
  46. Kant, I. 1966f. Wiener Logik. In Kant 1900–, vol. 24, 790–940.Google Scholar
  47. Kant, I. 1980. Danziger Physik. In Kant 1900–, vol. 29, 97–169.Google Scholar
  48. Kant, I. 1998a. Logik Bauch. In Logik-Vorlesung: Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften, vol. 1, ed. T. Pinder. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  49. Kant, I. 1998b. Logik Hechsel. In Logik-Vorlesung: Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften, vol. 2, ed. T. Pinder, 269–499. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  50. Kitcher, P. 2000. Kant’s transcendental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kreines, J. 2008. Kant on the laws of nature: Laws, necessitation, and the limitation of our knowledge. European Journal of Philosophy 17: 527–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. La Rocca, C. 2003. Giudizi provvisori: Sulla logica euristica del processo conoscitivo. In C. La Rocca, Soggetto e mondo: Studi su Kant, 79–119. Venice: Marsilio.Google Scholar
  53. Lambert, J.H. 1764. Neues Organon oder Gedanken über die Erforschung und Bezeichnung des Wahren und dessen Unterscheidung vom Irrthum und Schein, 2 Vols. Leipzig: Wendler.Google Scholar
  54. Laudan, L. 1981. The sources of modern methodology: Two models of change. In L. Laudan, Science and hypothesis: Historical essays on scientific methodology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  55. Locke, J. 1693. Some thoughts concerning education, ed. J.W. Yolton and J.S. Yolton (1989). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Locke, J. 1976–89. The correspondence of John Locke, ed. S. De Beer. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  57. Malzkorn, W. 2000. Kant and the dynamics of science. Philosophia naturalis 37: 77–95.Google Scholar
  58. Newton, I. 1687. The principia: Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. ed. I.B. Cohen and A.M. Whitman (1999). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  59. Newton, I. 1714/15. An Account of the Book Entituled Commercium Epistolicum Collinii & aliorum, De Analysi promota. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 342: 173–224.Google Scholar
  60. Parker, S. 1666. Free and impartial censure of the Platonick philosophie: Being a letter written to his much honoured friend Mr. N.B. Oxford: W. Hall.Google Scholar
  61. Power, H. 1664. Experimental philosophy. London: John Martin and James Allestry.Google Scholar
  62. Reid, T. 2001. Essays on the intellectual powers of man: A critical edition, ed. K. Haakonssen and D.R. Brookes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sato, T. 2008. Chemical affinity in Kant’s practical philosophy. In Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants: Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, Vol. 3, ed. V. Rohden et al., 359–68. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Seigfried, H. 1989. Transcendental experiments. In Proceedings of the sixth international Kant congress, Vol. 2, ed. G. Funke and T.M. Seebohm, 341–50. Washington, DC: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology and University Press of America.Google Scholar
  65. Sprat, T. 1667. The history of the royal society of London for the improving of natural knowledge. London: J. Martyn.Google Scholar
  66. Steinle, F. 1997. Entering new fields: Exploratory uses of experimentation. Philosophy of Science 64 (Suppl): S65–S74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turnbull, G. 1740. The principles of moral philosophy: An enquiry into the wise and good government of the moral world. London: J. Noon.Google Scholar
  68. Walch, J. G. 1775. Philosophisches lexicon, 4th ed., trans and ed. J. C. Hennings. Leipzig: Gleditsch.Google Scholar
  69. Wartenberg, T.E. 1992. Reason and the practice of science. In The Cambridge companion to Kant, ed. P. Guyer, 228–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations