Comment Re:A Priori??? (Score 1) 1215
You are in denial if you think there is no real controversy regarding a priori.
Hey, thanks for missing the point. I was clarifying the correct definition (and hence usage) of the term a priori, concerning which there is no controversy.
I'm leaning towards the empiricists (that there is no fact known a priori).
You're confusing innate knowledge, which the empiricists denied, with a priori knowledge, which they did not. Let me give another example: the statement "All bachelors are unmarried men" is known to be true a priori; that is, you need not go and examine all bachelors to determine if they are unmarried, because the statement is true by definition. In contrast, the statement "All bachelors have brown eyes" must be verified a posteriori; that is, you need to go and examine actual bachelors to determine the truth of the statement.
Hey, thanks for missing the point. I was clarifying the correct definition (and hence usage) of the term a priori, concerning which there is no controversy.
I'm leaning towards the empiricists (that there is no fact known a priori).
You're confusing innate knowledge, which the empiricists denied, with a priori knowledge, which they did not. Let me give another example: the statement "All bachelors are unmarried men" is known to be true a priori; that is, you need not go and examine all bachelors to determine if they are unmarried, because the statement is true by definition. In contrast, the statement "All bachelors have brown eyes" must be verified a posteriori; that is, you need to go and examine actual bachelors to determine the truth of the statement.
