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?

Kant states, that the apparent view at the time is, that any knowledge can only be gained by experiencing them through our senses and that they need to comply with our perception of the world. He further states that if you were to follow that definition, any idea, theory or assumption one comes up with is immediately void again as it did not origin through experience and therefore does not comply with said definition. Kant suggests to somewhat overturn that definition and instead of taking our observations as the truth, rather proof our knowledge and assumptions towards our observation of the world and see if this makes it easier to answer the questions in metaphysics. In simpler terms instead of taking everything we see as the sole truth, see if we can come up with answers to metaphysical questions and prove these questions by examining our surroundings and through experiments.
As an example he takes Copernicus who broke with the view at the time that the universe is revolving around the earth. And only by doing so and assuming something which he so far has not been able to observe or experience he was able to come up with the notion that in fact the earth is turning and the universe stands still.
To Conclude his statement: In order to gain knowledge we should prove theories and assumptions against our observation, not against what so far is known as the truth for it might not longer be the truth.

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"?

In the discussion that follows the above statement, Socrates explains to Theaetetus, or rather lets himself discover through a variety of statements and questions and by counter proofing any statements by telling examples and comparing them to other statements, that what he hears and sees are simple sensations that reach his mind and soul through organs and that only through comparison in the mind they are properly defined. He further states that these sensations are given to men and animal at birth but their meaning can only be learned through "education and long experience". (1) This means our senses are mere instruments for the brain to utilize. As Theaetetus states we perceive the world around us through our senses but it needs the brains analysation to characterize them.

To compare this view to the modern term "empiricism" we first need to look at the definition of said term: According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language empiricism is
"The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge." (2) While this already seems to be in accordance with Socrates view that only through experience and education knowledge is gained, it does not quite account for the process behind the perception of the senses to them become knowledge by comparison. Colins English dictionary definition of empiricism, which is "the doctrine that all knowledge of matters of fact derives from experience and that the mind is not furnished with a set of concepts in advance of experience." (3), seems to better account for Socrates view, that while anyone is given those senses at birth, only "through comparison with past and future things in the soul" they will transform to knowledge. While it slightly depends on the definition of empiricism how sufficient Socrates argument is as an example of it, when looking at them as a whole it becomes quite clear that the argument is indeed directed towards said term.

(1) Plato, Theaetetus; translated by Jowett, Benjamin; Project Gutenberg, web, published 01.04.1999
(2) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
(3) Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014