Is a priori knowledge really possible? Is there a distinction between a priori and a posteriori? What are priori propositions?
The Latin terms a priori and a posteriori mean ‘from what is before’ and ‘from what is after,’ respectively. A type of justification (say, via perception) is fallible if and onlyif it is possible to be justified in that way in holding a falsebelief. Just as we can be empirically justified in believing a falseproposition (e.g., 9b: two quarts of water plus two quarts of carbon tetrachloride do notcombine to yield four quarts of liquid), philosophers argue that wecan also be a priori justified in believing a falseproposition.
Perhaps Kant was a priori justified in believingthat every event has a cause. He thought that the proposition had thatstatus. Yet many physicists believe that there are genuinely randomevents at the subatomic level, a. See full list on plato.
A standard answer to the question about the difference between apriori and empirical justification is that a priorijustification is independent of experience and empirical justificationis not, and this seems to explain the contrasts present in the fifteenexamples above. But various things have been meant by“experience”. On a narrow account,“experience” refers to sense experience, that is, toexperiences that come from the use of our five senses: sight, touch,hearing, smell, and taste. (more…)