“Reality and existence is not a predicate” (Ref.1)
In philosophy ever since the time of Pythagoras there has been an opposition between thoughts inspired by mathematics and those by empirical sciences. Beginning from Plato, Thomas Aquinal, Spinoza, and Kant who represented the mathematical thought; Democritus, Aristotle, and the modern empiricists from Locke and these onwards who stand on the empirical sciences side. Comparing this to the modern analytical empiricism, differs from Locke or Hume because it incorporates developments of the mathematics and its logical technique which enables define answers in problem solving. We do however need to bear in mind that the scientific methods are not relevant to everything let’s take questions of value or moral choices or even a judgement, “things that are legitimately matters of feeling lie outside its province.” (Ref.2)
Kant’s famous critique of the so-called, ontological proof of God’s existence, he "correctly found the source of error of this proof in the fact that existence is treated as a predicate.(...) Reality for him is a category, and if we apply it in any way, and say of an objects that it is real this means, according to Kant, that it belongs to a collection of perceptions connected according to the same natural law.” (Ref.1)
“Morally, a philosopher who uses his professional competence for anything except a disinterested search for truth is guilty of a kind of treachery. (...) The true philosopher is prepared to examine all perceptions. When any limits are placed, consciously or unconsciously, upon the pursuit of truth, philosophy becomes paralysed by fear, and the ground is prepared for a government censorship pushing those who utter ‘dangerous thoughts’ (...). ” (Ref.2)
I place this thoughts as relevant in my research as having to take up re-examination of a guilty verdict by law is standing up against this censorship and danger of questioning the judgement that has been already approved.
In order to see why any not factual judgement which has been supported by speculative scenarios is questionable. Not only logic dictates it but also moral duty to question it.
Reason why I will be looking into psychology and philosophy of judgement is that I believe that to understand the verdict that took place in certain time, place, sociological surrounding as well as economical circumstances may unveil the reasoning behind the decision and even perhaps show directions leading into the verdict that was decided. It this way I will see what influenced the verdict and learn if there is any possibility of it being wrong partially because of these influences.
References and inspiration:
Ref. 1) Logical Positivism, A.J.Ayer (1959)
Ref. 2) Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (1946)
