Talk:A priori and a posteriori

Grammar
Changed "she would not experience the world as an orderly rule governed place" to "she would not experience the world as an orderly, rule-governed place." The phrase was annoying to read as it was unclear as well as grammatically incorrect. I also added a hyphen to "rule governed place" because the phrase "rule-governed" is describing "place" and reads a bit better.
 * Agreed; thanks. –Pomte 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mergers
I created this article to merge the a priori entry (at least the philosophical part) and the a posteriori entry (that is, the empirical knowledge entry). I hope no one minds. I checked the talk pages and people seemed to want to disambiguate the philosophical use of the term "a priori" from the non-philosophical uses. Furthermore, the a priori and a posteriori entries were both slim and the two are best presented together. There wasn't much talk going on those talk pages either. - Jaymay 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User Ajo Mama has suggested some sort of merger. I'm not sure exactly what he wants merged and why. It would be nice if Ajo Mama would clarify here on the talk page. - Jaymay 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since User Ajo Mama hasn't provided any discussion here regarding his suggestion, I'm just going to take off the merge banner.  But, by all means, discuss it here if you'd like. -- Jaymay 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean up
Lots of this entry needs cleaning up (and expansion--see below). The notion of the a priori and related issues is a huge area of philosophy and even affects metaphilosophical issues. Hopefully it can be made up to be a great article, since it's so central to the discipline. - Jaymay 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently reverted some changes that Prokaryote made, only because they seem pretty important:
 * 1) In the intro paragraph, the explanation of the generally meanings of the terms should be left open.  Thus, I figured (a) that it should say "dependent" instead of "based" (that's irrespective of Prokaryote's changes) and (b) that it should be left open what "experience" means.  Anyhow, experience in this sense is not normally limited by "sensory input" or "introspective consciousness".  I think that, in the intro, it should be fairly general and unspecified.
 * 2) In the Intuitive Distinction section, it seems clear that a priori does not have anything to do with being learned.  It has to do with an epistemological notion of knowledge, not a psychological one of learning.  Also, it's important to keep in mind that the thing that one is said to know (the proposition) must be knowledge.  That's why I put the qualification on there that "George V reigned from 1910-1936" must be assumed to be knowledge; it may not even be true.
 * 3) Similarly, in the section on Kripke, it is important to note that "Water = H2O" may not be true.  What Kripke really argued was that what is necessary a posteriori is the proposition that if water is H2O, then it is so necessarily.  So, that's why I put in the qualification that it's only that way if the identity is true.
 * 4) I changed the style back to having the punctuation outside of quotation marks as it is in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, under the section on punctuation.  I know that the normal U.S. English style is to do it the other way, but the U.K. English style makes much more sense and it's the way that Wikipedian's want it per the MOS.

- Jaymay 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, I have a lot of punctuation (of mine) to clean up, then. To note: the Wikipedia manual of style still recommends writing full sentences with the periods, etc. within the quotation marks (except for questions about statements). As for the learning thing: I've been under the impression (right or wrong) that "learning" is synonymous (on some level) with "acquiring knowledge." I'll leave it the way you put it, though, since I'm not altogether familiar with acadamic usage of the word "learning." Prokaryote 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Updating the learning thing: the SEP article on belief includes the following sentence: "When someone learns a particular fact, for example, when Kai reads that some astronomers no longer classify Pluto as a planet, he acquires a new belief (in this case, the belief that some astronomers no longer classify Pluto as a planet)." Right, wrong, colloquial, ??? use of the word "learns"? Prokaryote 04:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are certainly lots of ways to use "learn". This SEP entry seems to claim that learning involves acquiring beliefs.  That seems intuitive and uncontroversial, although it's still not using them interchangeably.  Anyhow, what I was worrying about before, though, was using "learn" and "knowledge" interchangebly.  Belief is, presumably, only part of knowledge.  When you learn something, such as there are 550 continents on Earth, you may acquire a belief, but you surely don't acquire knowledge, namely because it's false. - Jaymay 23:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Something to think about re: my use of the word "learning" and epistemology: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/learning-formal/ Prokaryote 04:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The example used in the first paragraph states: "'No light escapes black holes,' is a theory deduced from empirical physics". Although the example is used in support of a priori knowledge, the phrasing, especially the use of the word "empirical" seems to relate it to a posteriori knowledge. Also, in this specific example, whether the knowledge used to justify the proposal is empirical is debatable, since it comes from ab initio mathmatical proofs and "thought experiments". In order for the justifying knowledge to be considered a posteriori the experiments would (arguably) have needed to be based on experience and provide observable and measurable results.

Might more mundane and less debatable examples serve the article better for the purposes of clarity? For example, something like:

"The proposal 'every living human has a brain' is based on a priori knowledge, since we don't have to perform surgery in order to justify it. On the other hand, the proposal 'the light bulb is currently illuminated' is based on a posteriori knowledge, namely our experience of what a light bulb and its surrounding environment looks like when an active source of light is present".

WonderWander (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The examples in the article are poor; they should clearly illustrate the definition. I am afraid your example of 'every living human has a brain' as a priori is not a good one, since it would appear to be an example of something discovered A Posteriori, by experience (i.e. the opening of skulls). Have a look at  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/ which says A priori knowledge is knowledge that rests on a priori justification. A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience. .. Standard examples of propositions known a priori include: a bachelor is an unmarried male; 2 + 3 = 5; Kant suggested any true mathematical statement.  You DO have to be careful with examples.  It could be argued that light cannot excape from a black hole is known a priori like all bachelors  all are male: if a black hole is by definition that from which nothing can escape it follows a fortiori that light canot escape a black hole.  If on the hand black hole is defined in some otherway, invoving intenstity of gravitational filed or the like, light not escaping a black hole would be known A Posteriori depending on the expereinces we have of light being bent by gravity as in apparent star shifts durin solar ecclipses.   In any case the "black hole" is a bad example since the average reader would not know the definition of black holePhilogo (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Expansion
The article now has a lot of section, but very little in each. Hopefully people can expand the section and provide sources for claims, quotes, etc. - Jaymay 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More stuff about empirical knowledge, citation
Right now, the article is focused on aprior[ic]ity. That's... problematic. Also, I'm (right now) not so hot when it comes to citation. I mean, I want to do it, and do it right, but I don't have the much in the way of resources (aside from secondhanding the SEP/IEP, but I want to ask the relevant authors for permission first, or whatever, when it comes to that). Prokaryote 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

More stuff about philosophy - basics/background
There is nothing in the article that cites to Aristotle's Organon, where much of the conceptual basis for a priori and a posteriori thinking was laid down. Certainly there is a semantic change over time regarding the a priori concept, moving from existance/essence to likelihood of event having happened. There is also a change for a posteriori, moving from essence to contingent fact to likelihood of dependant event. Still, without the framework of Aristotle there is not any 'beginning' of the field save for Plato's many stories. Organon includes other elements: ontology, classification, etc beyond Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics that provide a basis for categorical logic and even include basics of statistics (but without numbers). The chapters on Prior and Posterior Analytics should be mentioned at the least in this article. Dvandusen (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issues
How can I incorporate the info on apriority that I've located in the S.E.P. and the I.E.P. without violating copyright? HAVE I violated copyright? Prokaryote 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be easy to figure out whether you are violating copyright. Just don't copy anything out of there without quoting it and providing a proper citation.  Even if you paraphrase something from it or got an idea from it, you should cite it and the relevant section. - Jaymay 07:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. That isn't liable to be difficult. Prokaryote 21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Should some of the phenomenological philosophers such a Drs. Josef Siefert or Dietrich von Hildebrand be mentioned? Von Hildebrand has given one of the best definitions of a priori vis a vis a whole person experience in his book "What is Philosophy."

Siefert gives a wonderful example of using a priori in his work "Back to Things in Themselves." http://www.iap.li/oldversion/site/research/Back_to_Things_Themeselves/Back_to_Things_In_Themeselves.pdf --user:Ginot 00:01, Oct 01, 2005 (EDT)

I think some facts need to be checked. Quine accepts that there is a priori knowledge? He demolished the analytic/synthetic distinction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.175.19.63 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Terms in Euclid's Elements
The statement "Both terms appear in Euclid's Elements" should be re-phrased. We are dealing with two Latin phrases, but Euklid's Elements are originally written in Ancient Greek. Either it should be stated that the original concepts are mentioned there (but not with these phrases), or that these terms have later been used in a Latin translation of the Elements (or possibly both). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.239.110.190 (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggested revision of the second half of the article
So, how's it look? Definitely not perfect. But, hopefully, better. Prokaryote 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I didn't see this until late. Gotta sleep.  I'll definitely take a look soon though. -- Jaymay 07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I made some changes to your suggested revision. I mostly tried to organize, add some things, and remove some things in order to tie all of it together into the relation to the a priori and a posteriori (such as relating it all to Kant's theory of pure intuition).  I like the idea of going back to having a section on its own regarding Kant's theory, and then having a different section on the whole relation to analyticity and necessity.  I also think that the "Aprioricity, analyticity, and necessity" section should be a sub heading instead of a sub-sub heading.  I would motion to have this stuff put in the article (just below the "Rationalism and empiricism" section, of course).  What do you think? -- Jaymay 20:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not bad, but the "According to Kant, a priori knowledge is conceptual, in that it is based on the form of all possible experience, while a posteriori knowledge is empirical, in that it is based on the content of experience." sentence doesn't exactly fit with the stuff about pure intuition. Kant's theory distinguishes (accurately or not) between concepts and intuitions. But, I'm having a hard time rewording the sentence so that it stays as simple as it is and yet accounts for the concept/intuition distinction. I thought of "rational" and "transcendental" in place of "conceptual", but the first still maybe doesn't reflect Kant's position (I think he regarded "rational" theories as examples of transcendental dialectic or something) while the second is odd-sounding (outside of the context of Kant's usage).


 * I also edited the suggested revision otherwise in a few places. Prokaryote 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe "transcendental" should replace "conceptual". It is a special use of the term for Kant, but it would then be explained after it was used ("...knowledge is transcendental, in that it is based on the form of all possible experience...").  Watcha think? -- Jaymay 04:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How about, "According to Kant, a priori knowledge is transcendental, or based on the form of all possible experience..."? If you don't want that, then I say: just go with what you suggested.Prokaryote 01:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll put the changes in the article.  I'll move them from here to there. (So, the text will no longer be on this talk page, taking up space.) -- Jaymay 08:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but din't Kant describe how synthetical a priori knowledge was possible in his 'Critique of Pure Reason'? He gave the example of any basic mathematical or geometrical equation.  You mention Quine's argument against the analytic theory, but you don't mention Kant's own original examples of synthetic a priori knowledge.  I am, at best, a casual student of philosophy, so perhaps there is some flaw in Kant's work that invalidates it, but I'm confused as to why it wasn't included in the article. Mikey81 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

definition
the "before experience" & "after experience" definition doesn't follow the whole gamut of the possible philosophic interpretation of thr word. Dictionary.com defines it fairly well under 'A Priori' as "from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation." and 'A Posteriori' as "from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data". It doesn't necessarily have to, however, imply 'experience' but rather before or after being posited. Such as a dialectical 'a priori synthesis' in an idealistic dialectic; i.e. a synthesis having always been there and only separated by abstraction. Nagelfar 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence of the entry is ″A priori knowledge is independent from current experience (e.g., as part of a new study).″ What is ″current experience″ suppose to mean? The whole point of a priori knowledge is that it is independent of any experience, not only current experience. See IEP definition of a priori. If a proposition is dependent on future experience is it then a priori knowledge? I would say it is neither a priori nor knowledge. Real Pattern (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Is it pronounced: ah-pree-ori, or ay-pry-oriy? 128.6.175.30 14:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Either way, I think. I have heard professionals pronounce it each way pretty much 50/50.  I don't think there's a way to tell how it is "truly" pronounced, since it is Latin. - Jaymay 04:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure there is: ask a classicist. My one quarter of college Latin hardly qualifies me as such, but I believe the first pronunciation above is the "correct" one. But then, "alumni" would be pronounced ah-loom-nee, yet most people (including me) say uh-lum-nye. I think both of the above, and any other permutations of those syllables, are probably fine outside of an ancient Latin context. Super Aardvark 08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is pronounced the second way in the best English, even by classicists like me. Similarly with alumni, whereas alumnae would end in -ee. Initial a in alumni is short in Latin, by the way.Esedowns (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hyphen?
Is a priori ever hyphenated? It seems like it should be, but I almost never see it. —Ben FrantzDale 13:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never seen it hyphened, at least in philosophy. Sometimes professional philosophers write it together as one word, especially when used as a noun, e.g. "aprioricity".  I think it's just an attempt to make it a term of art in philosophy, which, by now, it is. - Jaymay 04:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
Can you use "a priori" capitalized? I've changed put up the lowercase template to show that it shouldn't. --165.230.46.142 19:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it should follow the capitalization rules of any other pair of words, i.e. "A priori" at the beginning of a sentence, "A Priori" in a title, etc. It is, though, as someone said, a term of art in Philosophy, so maybe different rules could apply. Super Aardvark 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Philosophy" is not capitalized either (as it is not a Proper Noun). We do not typically capitalize "cheese" either. Yet the Wikipedia article on cheese doesn't include the lowercase template. :) Nor should this one. A priori knowledge is a priori knowledge. --Quuxplusone 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What a big painting!
Can someone figure out what a large copy of Courbet's L'Origine du Monde is doing over the article? I can't seem to spot what's causing it in the article source. ink_13 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Is there any objection to spell the term 'a-priori' to avoid confusion with the English article 'a', especially in situation where the term is broken into two lines? --Sascha.leib 11:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The italics should help avoid confusion. I doubt using a hyphen is proper. –Pomte 15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion
Am I the only one that feels this article is especially confusing? Surely the concept of a priori can be summed up succinctly for people that do not already understand the concept. If you have no prior knowledge of the term, this article is very much unhelpful. I can assure you of this, as I stumbled across the page without knowing of this term. In the end, I checked other resources for a definition of the terms.

I understand (as stated in the article) that the meaning is up for debate, but this doesn't seem to me a good excuse for avoiding an attempt at defining it. Nearly every sentence in the opening pages of the article is apologetic rather than informative. 198.144.206.231 07:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article needs to be more clear. utcursch | talk 14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too. Also it doesn't even mention its scientific use (see Bayes theorem) 155.198.65.29 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too! Why don't you make the connection, and add a mention of its use in Bayesian statistics? yoyo (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Much of this outdated philosophical nonsense is dead and buried as a result of modern Bayesian statistics and science; knowledge is just a configuration of the brain and experiences are just observed data. If the author includes a discussion on Bayesian statistics then the statement, "A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience" will have to be changed to say that a priori knowledge is the sum of knowledge over all possible given experiences.Runestone1 (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about this sentence: "The American philosopher Saul Kripke (1972), for example, provided strong arguments against this position." What position, exactly, is being referred to? Ricklaman (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading between the digressions, I'd say it referred to the first claim of the preceding paragraph, viz.:
 * "... some philosophers have considered the relationship between aprioricity, analyticity, and necessity to be extremely close."
 * However, it's not clear to me how to effect an improvement. yoyo (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

two plus two = 4
The example put by the definition of a priori knowledge is argued to be a posteriori as well, since a human being to the base needs some sort of language to even think about certain things. So therefore, a human being also needs language to think about 2 + 2 = 4, so, a posteriori, since a language is only mastered through experience. I have added a piece about posteriori and priori in the knowledge article. See there for more examples. I am not saying I know better, but I heard some good arguments. I know if you think about language being a requisite, you must eliminate a lot in the article. Mallerd 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Synthetic Apriori
Suggest a seperate section on the highly controvertial area of the synthetic apriori. I searched wiki, expecting to find a seperate article on the subject but was re-directed to the synthetic/analytic distinction, an awful article, so came here, a little better, but dont you think the synthetic apriori needs to be clearly delineated as there will be people searching for it specifically. Wireless99 11:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements that are a priori true are WHAT?
In other words, statements that are a priori true are tautologies.

This sentence doesn't even make sense. It does not use "other words," it uses only an "other word." English is a contextual and descriptive language. One-word definitions are rarely enough to convey anything of meaningful value.

Granted, if a reader wanted to know more about tautologies, he/she could follow the link, however, a general definition with a link for further study is far more useful in providing understanding, context, and meaning.

In other words, this sentence does not explain why a priori statements, which are true, are tautologies, and why a priori statements which are false, are not.

Tanstaafl28 11:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

David Hume
I take issue with the presentation of Hume's beliefs. From my reading, I understand Hume to believe that all knowledge is a posteriori. The section in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding preceding the one mentioned that delineates "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact" explains his belief that all ideas are derived from impressions. This would support my belief that Hume thinks that all knowledge is a posteriori. Indeed, the article on this piece describes him as an empiricist. I grant that I haven't been reading Hume for long, but it seems to me there's a contradiction. The Fwanksta 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Absolutely endorse the above 85.77.125.19 (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence
The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used in philosophy to distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning, respectively.

Eh?--Philogo 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at least that problem has been fixed! ;-) yoyo (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

bachelors example
The opening paragraph gives "all bachelors are unmarried" as an example of a priori. Is this a good example? Is it even a correct example? That all bachelors are unmarried is simply by definition. It is a matter of semantics not of knowledge. Arguably our knowing that all bachelors are unmarred does come from experience...our experience of learning that the word "bachelor" means "unmarried". --Ericjs (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this example is correct, and a good one. Yes, understanding it requires knowledge of English, but so does the entire article. What we are talking about here is the "notion" of a bachelor as an unmarried male (unmarried and male also being "notions"). Therefore this example would work in any language, as long as the correct notions are conveyed. Bachelor does not mean "unmarried," it means "unmarried male," and therefore this is not a straight definition, though it is a tautology (though both definitions and tautologies constitute a priori knowledge). A similar example would be that the sum of the angles in a triangle must equal 180 degrees.72.177.83.171 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This example is incorrect, as pointed out in the first note of this section. It IS merely a definition. The defining element of "bachelor" is NOT that it refers to a male; it is that it refers to an UNMARRIED one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.40.254 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

reading the above questions/comments I feel something is missing. you could be a deaf mute living in a tribe and over time you could develop a notion of what a bachelor is conceptually based on your observations of behavior. Isn't that the definition of what a bachelor is in the statement "all bachelors are unmarried", the relationship between the references, not the fact that these are words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:1D29 (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Four seperate articles needed
IMO, there needs to be four seperate articles for


 * analytic a priori
 * synthetic a priori
 * analytic a posteriori
 * synthetic a posteriori

And that includes NOT redirecting synthetic a priori to Analytic-synthetic distinction. Even analytic a posteriori should have its own article, despite Kant's rejection of it. Such an article should of course include Kant's (and others') justification for rejecting it, but there are others, (e.g., Stephen Palmquist), who argue that analytic a posteriori knowledge not only exists, but is even important. EPM (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * disagree--Philogo (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also disagree. What we need to provide are clear articles, with good examples, on each of the three distinctions:
 * aprioricity --- a priori vs. a posteriori
 * analyticity --- analytic vs. synthetic
 * necessity --- necessary vs. contingent
 * Further, each example needs to emphasise the distinction made in that article.


 * And shouldn't each article discuss the relation between the distinction it makes, and truth?


 * We also need an article that compares and relates the three distinctions, again with a set of good examples, that set being constructed with a view to allow easy comparison on any one of the three dimensions of aprioricity, analyticity and necessity. Such ease of comparison requires that each comparable pair discusses similar things in similar ways, e.g. "All [these] apples [I've tasted] are sweet."  Perhaps a tabular presentation of such examples would help clarify matters.  yoyo (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Retained Art/Architecture Content
The following material has been pasted into a number of articles with only tenuous connection to the topic; I have reverted and retain the content here:
 * A Priori (a priori), Arche Tipo (archetype) and Genius Loci (genius logic) were leading general principals of a very effective movement (especially in architecture), called ‘Neo-Rationalism’ or New Rationalism, was one of the most powerful movement throughout the world beginning from Italy. Its pioneer is Italian architect Aldo Rossi and followers like Giorgio Grassi. Neo-Rationalism developed in the light of a re-evaluation of the work of Giuseppe Terragni led by Aldo Rossi, and gained momentum through the work of Giorgio Grassi. Characterized by elemental forms of vernacular and an absence of cosmetic detail, the Neo Rationalist style has adherents beginning from the architectural world then into other worlds of Art throughout European, American and Asian Cultures. Later, the movement calls, Post-Modernism, which almost opposite discipline of Neo-Rationalism, and De-Constructivism, one develop the similar based movement into a deconstruction of the elements, follows this powerful movement of 1970s and 1980s.

--Mavigogun (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Fodor Citation
Would the idea that George V must have reigned for at least a day if at all have to be based on some understanding that the word "reigned" directly implies this in order to be a priori? If so, and if "reigned" does not imply a minimum length of one day, the suggestion could be added that something like "If George V reigned at all, then he reigned for some amount of time." would be a priori. The same section of the article mentions varying usage of the terms and if the Fodor citation is in fact being used to exemplify this more explanation would be helpful. DearthOfMateriel (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm sure there are some rulers in history who have not held power for even a full day, and even if there were no real-world examples, the idea certainly isn't inconceivable. I will edit this. 96.10.232.194 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Analyticity and necessity - faulty concluding sentence
In the subsection "Relation to the analytic-synthetic", after quoting Quine, the article says: "Analytic propositions are thought to be true in virtue of their meaning alone, while a priori synthetic propositions are thought to be true in virtue of their meaning and certain facts about the world."

To my mind, this does not support the notion expressed in the final sentence that summarises the section: "However, most philosophers at least seem to agree that while the various distinctions may overlap, the notions are clearly not identical: the a priori/a posteriori distinction is epistemological, the analytic/synthetic distinction is linguistic, and the necessary/contingent distinction is metaphysical."

If, indeed, an a priori synthetic proposition is one that notices "certain facts about the world", it is one that derives its knowledge not solely from language, but also from a theory of how we can know things (in this case, by "facts", however ascertained) - in other words, an epistemology.

The weasel words "most philosophers ... seem to agree" also worry me. Why pretend there is a consensus when there so clearly isn't? yoyo (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence (scientific empiricism) and Apriori Knowledge
There is worldwide philosophical consensus on apriori nature of knowledge of the world. If man is endowed with only one medium to experience the physical world (five senses)any evidence whatever it might be could only be known through human senses. In this case, the evidence relied upon by the science to prove a theory that x (physical being/thing)is y is either apriori or a false claim. When science doubts human experience through his senses for being unreliable to know the objective truth of the physical world it alleviates scientific evidence to a level more than senses. However, this situation is self contradictory in so far as the scientists ultimately rely on their own senses to grasp\experience and understand the evidence at hand. If one can reject senses and the experience derived through the medium of senses is unreliable (according to science) then there is no way man can ever learn the objective truth of the physical world. How do you know if a glass of orange juice is infact orange juice? Scienctific evidence does not prove if orange juice is orange juice. whatever evidence experiments reveal could be anything but the objective truth. This is that fact that man has a physical limitation so far as his ability to perceive the world outside of him i.e man cannot do away with his senses and continue perceving the world. This leaves only two possibilities so far as truth revealed by scientific evidence. Evidence by itself does not prove anything. Humans first believe in something (apriori) and then look for justification acceptable to all his peers. If some evidence is acceptable to all then they claim the truth proved by the evidence. or They simply claim x is proof y. There is no way this can be either proved or disproved..same like God or spirit or ghost.

Humans first believe in something and then try to confirm its acceptability with their peers. Scientific method is one of the many ways humans try to confirm their beliefs. 124.124.230.149 (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

These terms are grammatically incorrect
In Latin, the preposition a (short for ab) usually means "from", and both priori and posteriori are rendered in the dative case. However, this preposition takes only the ablative case, which would require the words to be rendered as priore and posteriore.

As written, these phrases are both nonsensical and grammatically incorrect. To salvage it with minimal modification, in the context of worldly knowledge gained in the presence or absence of experience, to render such phrases as "knowledge from prior/posterior to experience" as Kant presumably intended, it's actually experientia that would be rendered in the dative if anything would be, not prior or posterior: Scientia a priore/posteriore experientiae. Or even more correctly, one would use entirely different words: the prepositions ante and post. Scientia ante/post experientiam, knowledge prior to/posterior to experience.

This misuse of Latin reflects Kant's ignorance of the language, just as most of the contents of his Critique of Pure Reason reflect his ignorance of mathematics. He was, in truth, a pretty shabby philosopher. Aristotle did much more with much less to use as a basis. --173.230.96.116 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Grammatical or not, these terms have been standard philosophical terminology for centuries, and there is no question of Wikipedia trying to amend the perceived mistakes of history. So I would suggest, if you want the article to include grammatical commentary, to find reliable sources such as academic journals that cover the matter and incorporating those as references. Best,  Skomorokh   19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A reliable source on grammar is someone who knows the grammar. A set which obviously includes only one of the two of us. Thanks for your completely pointless comment which suggests nothing of use, and which is presumed upon a suggestion I didn't actually make. You've made an ass of yourself in record time, surely. --173.230.96.116 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it wasn't time wasted, it seems to have made you feel better about yourself. I think, reading your first sentence in the preceding comment, that you are operating under an incomplete understanding of Wikipedia policy. Allow me to rephrase. Your reading of the subject is at odds with this encyclopaedia's treatment of it: what, given the particular limitations under which we are operating, do you propose to do about it? Sincerely,  Skomorokh   20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Article contains examples which are wrong.
''By contrast, consider the proposition, "If George V reigned at all, then he reigned for a finite period of time." This is something that one knows a priori, because it expresses a statement that one can derive by reason alone.''

This is not true: one would need to consult experience to know that it is impossible for a person to reign forever, or to have reigned forever. These facts cannot be deduced from reason independent of knowledge of reality.

People who are babysitting this article, get your shit together. Please. --173.230.96.116 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would guess that the original author(s) intended the designator "George V" to be by definition an entity incapable of reigning indefinitely, i.e. a mortal man. The point could be better made using fewer assumptions, I agree.  Skomorokh   20:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with 173.230.96.116. What, too, if George V is still reigning? Surely it would better say, "If George V reigned at all, and if his reign has ended, then he reigned for a finite period of time"? Nurg (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes! We need experience (a posteriori) to know that men are mortal. It is not known a priori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.1.128 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh. No philosopher am I, but my thought on reading the George example was that this is a fortiori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:BC52:E72A:3086:3E12 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It must be noted that the example contains a concrete element: King George V, and therefore, the sentence may not be pure reason. Heavyarms2025 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

lede
The following in the lede strikesme as inappropriate in the lede and badly phrased:Philogo (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC) There are many points of view on these two types of assertion, and their relationship is one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy.

By Definition
Isn't this page confusing a priori knowledge with definitions? I thought a priori knowledge is what we generally know from experience, before looking at the particular case. "Most 20 year old bachelors eventually get married" or "... a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" would be what I am thinking of. "All bachelors are unmarried" is a definition, isn't it? It doesn't tell us anything about the real world except what we call unmarried men, when we speak English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.50.99 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please JUSTIFY the inclusion. Occuring on the same web page is not enough
In the last days I have added in the == See also == section a link to the "Jungian archetypes" article. This edit has been undone twice by Arthur Rubin (talk) with the following comments:
 * ‎See also: remove *Jungian archetypes; possibly examples of "a priori" and/or "a posteriori", but not really that related) 11:56, 17 December 2012
 * (Undid revision 528456245 by Arthur Rubin (talk). A search using "a priori categories" & "archetypes" keywords returns an average of 17.400 results. So I guess there are "somehow"correlated.) 13:14, 3 January 2013
 * Reverted good faith edits by Maurice Carbonaro (talk): Please JUSTIFY the inclusion. Occuring on the same web page is not enough. 16:16, 3 January 2013


 * First of all I would like to point out that the "occurring" is not on "one same page" (sic!) but on 16,300 webpages (sorry not 17,400. (Please check for yourselves).
 * Secondly I can also provide a "JUSTIFICATION" (pardon me, a "Reference") like the following:

stating "This user is pro-cannabis, and opposes bigotry and oppression suffered by cannabis users." is making personal attacks to all those that don't agree with full legalisation of cannabis ("bigotry" could be seen as an insult). There could be several reasons for being against the full legalisation of cannabis. For instance a a serch that uses the keywords "paranoid schizophrenia" and "cannabis" returns 52,300 results. Should I provide a "JUSTIFICATION" for this as well? Last but not least I have posted this talk page comment in WP:30 in order to see if we can cool down our relationship that, IMHO, is starting to heat up. Happy New Year and with all due respect to everyone... thanks for reading me. Yours faithfully.   M  aurice    C arbonaro     09:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thirdly Dr. Vittorino Andreoli happens to be an italian psychiatrist. Talking about psychiatry I wonder if the very same user that has published on his user page the userbox
 * Fourthly, psychoanalysis and philosophy are not exact sciences like mathematics where every single statement requires a rigorous demonstration. Free associations, Rorschach tests, MMPI tests and so on don't require "JUSTIFICATIONS" written in capital letters. And anyway I have just added a simple link to a == See also == section. So I am kindly asking to Dr. Rubin (which happens to be also a wikipedia administrator and a doctor in mathematics) to try to stick to his areas of expertise while editing (and undoing) in wikipedia instead of stalking my recent contributions page and giving me the feeling that he is bossing me.
 * There has been some discussion, here and in the real world, as to whether psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. But, that's only relevant to the "merits" of your ad hominem argument, not to my substantive arguments.  As this is the first time you've added a source for any of your (on the surface, implausible) edits, I'll have to consider the merits of your argument.
 * The particular source seems to depend on the reliability of the (unnamed) translator from German to Italian, and as to whether «a priori» is an Italian phrase (in which case the non-translation from Italian to English is unjustified) or a borrowed Latin phrase. However, even assuming the reliability of the source, it verifies that "a priori categories" is relevant to (Jungian archetypes), not necessarily the reverse. I still lean against inclusion, but you have established a relationship between the concepts.  I'll tag the addition, rather than reverting again.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I must defend myself against charges that I accuse others of bigotry without evidence, because Maurice's accusation is not a priori unreasonable. There may be reasons to oppose full legalization of cannabis; however, it is clear from a study of the (US) law that it was not based on any rational information; "marijuana" is the only substance declared a "Schedule I drug by law; all other substances are assigned to their appropriate category based on scientific information, except some "supplements" which are declared legal, even though they would be "Schedule I" or "Schedule II" if subject to regulation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I must defend myself of being accused of bigotry (= blatantly personal attack) without evidence, because Arthur's accusation is not a posteriori acceptable. There has been at least one case in which another libertarian wikipedia administrator in favour of cannabis legalisation ended up hitting mainstream media for the 2010 Pentagon shooting. So I guess I have all reasons to think that I am not a "bigot" (thanks for the "compliments"). But, obviously, if anyone thinks marijuana legalisation should be pursued anyone should have the freedom of speech to say and/or write that without offending the rest of the world for being a "bigot". Last but not least I am starting to believe that "someone" is using wikipedia as means of political propaganda. Which, sooner or later, could bring to the Politicization of science. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. We may continue this discussion in WP:API. But I will just wait first for wp:30 about your past wp:pa performed in User_talk:Maurice_Carbonaro --   M  aurice    C arbonaro     09:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently I'm not making myself clear. I was saying that I oppose bigotry in regard marijuana, and that such bigotry clearly exists, not that all opposed to legalization of marijuana are bigots, or that all in favor of legalization of marijuana are sane or not bigots.  To avoid any further escalation of this issue, I decline comment as to whether your example supports your thesis.  Neither the argument nor any refutation has any place on Wikipedia, even on talk pages.
 * Furthermore, it would probably be a good idea to "hat" the previous comment and this one; but I won't do it without Maurice's consent. If my previous comment of 10:11, 6 January 2013 is to be hatted, so should "Thirdly", above, but I'm not going to do that without consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting back to the substance of the dispute. Even if "a priori" is relevant to Jungian archetypes, for which I now see adequate documentation, I don't see that Jungian archetypes is relevant to "a priori".  The google test would require that a significant fraction of the 31M+ web pages with "a priori" also refer to archetypes.  (The google test with "Jung" is inappropriate, as there seems to be some English word which google considers cognate to "Jung".  Without a more detailed query restricting word-forms, I cannot determine whether there are the nearly 1M web pages claimed.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine: I really appreciate that you are starting to decline comments in order to avoid any further escalations of the issue. I agree in "Hatting" but I would wait first in order to make the "incidents happened between us" more readable for wp:ani. Anyway there are less invasive actions than undoing ... like placing "citation needed" templates...   M  aurice    C arbonaro     12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge
I am not sure I understand why a priori points here and a posteriori points to A priori and a posteriori. Shouldn't they both point to A priori and a posteriori? speednat (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

awkward sentence?
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate spot to add a comment about the structure/grammar of just one particular sentence. I just mean to make a note about it, not to be nit-picky. I would edit it myself, however, I don't know enough about the topic to rewrite the sentence and be absolutely sure that I haven't incorrectly changed the meaning of it in the process.

Under "History", the last sentence under "Immanuel Kant" doesn't really make sense. At the very least it's awkwardly stated and difficult to read - see below

"In consideration of a possible logic of the a priori, this most famous of Kant's deductions has made the successful attempt in the case for the fact of subjectivity, what constitutes subjectivity and what relation it holds with objectivity and the empirical."

Thanks, --Jkriplean (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Change 2nd sentence 2nd paragraph
-Change from: These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" which must follow it.

-Change to: These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish premise-conclusions; from what must come before sense observation-a presence premise; from what must follow sense observation- past future premises.


 * That Kant was proposing understanding the validity of living in the present as necessary. This is a semantically more comprehensive update; Please go for the consensus. thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Finished the changes and links; go for the consensus, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources and future reading
I am confused by the differences in these sections. I would think the sources would be used in the text and should therefore be citations. If they were not used to write the text shouldn't they be under further reading? DannyHatcher (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

 * Article has failed the B-class criteria since 2014 and echoed again in 2022. Reassess article. --  Otr500 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)