trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Modern physics requires a revision of Kant's antinomies of space and time.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
3 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that modern physics requires a revision of Kant's antinomies of space and time?

Yes. Developments in modern physics, such as relativity and quantum cosmology, necessitate a re-examination of Kant's transcendental aesthetics regarding space and time.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 3 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The retrieved literature (specifically papers 9, 10, and 11) directly discusses how modern physics and cosmology necessitate a reinterpretation or revision of Kant's concepts of space and time. No papers refute this premise.

Evidence for · 3
2025
Get citation
Zhulkov, M. (2025). Consciousness, space and time in the philosophy of I. Kant and in the modern philosophy and science. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.30853/mns20250027

See more details
More for · 2
2021
Get citation
Dvorkin, I. (2021). Kant’s Concept of Space and Time in the Light of Modern Science. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.18254/s271326680016904-4

2022
Get citation
Minasyan, L. & Leshcheva, O. (2022). Kant's approach to understanding space from the perspective of modern natural science. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2022.3.37549

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 7504 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work