> He takes it as axiomatic that we cannot use empiricism to determine universal rules, which is something that seemed pretty well established as false by the ti

> He takes it as axiomatic that we cannot use empiricism to determine universal rules, which is something that seemed pretty well established as false by the time between when it was written and when I read it. I don't think this is true, at least with respect to the last ~80 years of the philosophy of science: the current "central dogma" of scientific inquiry is that all inferences must be falsifiable in order to be scientific. In other words: good science generates inductive and parsimonious explanations, not universal rules. To be universal would be to discharge falsifiability. Edit: For what it's worth, I think Kant's contemporaries also found him ponderous and difficult to read.