Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) 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."

How are we to understand this?

According to Kant, the knowledge we have is relative with our experience. That is to say, we observe the world and the objects around us, and we perceive each object because it is connected, in our mind, with a previous knowledge and experience. So we have a nature empirical world. Although, the objects in our empirical world are conforming to our cognition, Kant is wondering if we can enhance our cognition, by choosing different path to perceive the object around us. Are we going to have any progress if we try different ways to understand the world without using our experience? Moreover, maybe, the reason we cannot solve a problem it is because we do not change our view point. For example, Copernicus, found an answer for our solar system only when he changed his way of thinking. However, our view point it is not easy to change because the mind plays an active role in constituting the features of experience and limiting the access only to the empirical realm of space and time. As a result, it is not easy for everyone to use metaphysics in order to understand and give a different meaning to an object or to find a solution to a problem that is remaining unsolved. That lead Kant to think if the reason we cannot solve a problem is because the problem can not be solved or because we are not able to find the right path to the solution by using other means, like imagination and not experience. Will the metaphysic approach lead us at a positive result or it will lead us to nothing and how many times we have to retrace our path in order to lead us in the right direction?

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"?

It is known that humans have five senses. The sight and the hearing are two of them.  We receive information "with" the eyes and the ears.  Which means that eyes and ears are tools that help us receive sensation from the world. However, our mind is the main organ that collect the senatations and turn them into knowledge relative to our experience. As a result, Socrates argues that we actually see and hear ”through” our eyes and ears and not "with" our eyes and ears. In other words, as it is mentioned in the introduction and analysis of "Theaetetus", sight and hearing senses are passive, they receive impressions, but they do not produce them. So, they are regarded only as instruments of the mind. The mind analyze the transition from sense to thought.

Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience, so it is correct to say that Socrates argument is directed towards that direction. As expained above, mind perceive sensations through eyes and ears and turns them into knowledge based on our prior experience.

Sources:
Plato’s Theaetetus
Preface to the second edition of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/