Monday, October 09, 2006
A priori vs. A posteriori
A priori and a posteriori are terms used in epistemology to describe how parts of knowledge are derived. A priori refers to that which is reached before experience. An example of that would be "1+1=2" You do not have to have experienced the material world to be able to say that. Another classic example would be Descartes' saying "I think therefore I am." A posteriori refers to that which comes after experience. Examples of that would be "The sky is blue," or, "I have hands, feet, and a head. Therefore I am human." You can combine these two schools of thought, and you get empiricism. An example of that would be deducing p->q using a priori evidence, then using a posteriori evidence to deduce p, thus proving q. To sum up the two concepts, for those who are confused, a priori means just using logic, a posteriori means using your senses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
for those who are still confused, just click on the title of the post.
-Kered
What about empiricism? Is that any better? Or is it worse?
I still say that a priori is the only way to prove anything, because a posteriori requires assumptions. I'm not, mind you, saying that a priori definitely can prove anything, I’m just saying that if it can’t, nothing can. The only way anything can truly be proven is if there is some inherent truth that does not require assumptions. This truth would probably be of a spiritual manner.
Post a Comment