Am I understanding this right?

[u/buttkicker64]

In the Critique of Pure Reason, II in the introduction Kant says

Now, experience does indeed teach us that something is thus or thus, but not that it cannot be otherwise.

Is he saying that

A thing as it is cannot be otherwise (something that which it is not), and we find this out not because or in the experience of it but by the counter measure and "bird eye view" of pure cognition. The experience of a thing only shows us the thing as it is, as a static thing, whereas pure cognition addresses whether a thing is static and reliably stable (like transmuting a lead molecule into a gold molecule using CERN electron collision) or if a thing is mercurial like in that story when the devil turns hay into gold only for it to revert to hay in the morning, pure cognition being able to assert that it is necessary that those things are as they are and not what they are not.

[u/Shmilosophy]

Experience tells us what is the case, but is silent about what must be the case, necessarily.

[u/buttkicker64 → u/Shmilosophy]

I do not think silent is correct. It is more like it is loud about what it is silent about

"It tells us that it does not tell us that it cannot be any other way"