All about Brad McFall.

Following the Kantian dictum that percepts without concepts are blind but concepts without percepts empty, these two categories interpenetrate as “pure” data suggest novel ideas (how can one not rethink the causes of mass extinction when evidence surfaces for a bolide, 7-10 km in diameter, and packing 104 the megatonnage of all the earth’s nuclear weapons combined), whereas “abstract” concepts then taxonomize the natural world in different ways, often “creating” data that had never been granted enough previous intellectual space even to be conceived (as when punctuated equilibrium made stasis a theoretically meaningful and interesting phenomenon, and not just an embarrassing failure to detect “evolution,” in its traditional definition of gradual change - and paleontologists then began active studies of a subject that had previously been ignored as uninteresting, if conceptualized at all).

On the basis of Kant's saying in this passage above, I "predicted" that there should be creatures that might live within a torpid an ossified Earth and so I went looking for creatures that might be able to use the fossil concavities to facilitate embryogeny. Within two hours I had found mites that lay eggs in cavities of shell fossils. I did not follow up the initial retrodiction however as you have started to do going backward through Kant's Critique. It is wonderful that you seemed interesting in reading Kant this way. I have been waiting for some one so inclined to discuss with. I will respond with fuller use of the Kantian text next time.