Amerindianarts if you are referring to synthetic a priori knowledge such as mathematical principles you are absolutely correct today such principles are continually honed and developed and work side by side with empirical investigation of the natural world Best it should be avoided in the introductory paragraph then Pls see my remarks below The distinction between empirical knowledge and a priori knowledge is quite basic and can be found in any of a large number of standard philosophy textbooks Nonetheless if it is to be controversial in this article it whould be avoided in the introductory paragraph of the article at least until the article is cleaned up and contains reasonable explanations of these various empirical slants sampled further down in the article Since this article requires cleanup anyway I may as well start in bit by bit with some info and references to several such standard textbooks To begin the historical background if it is to be included at all is needed going all the way back to the debate between Plato and Aristotle yes innate vs empirical knowledge derived from sense perception It is a debate that continues even today except that in the context of accepted scientific investigation self evident a priori principles are no longer regarded as acceptable for at least the past hundred to two hundred years with the notable exception of what are known as synthetic a priori statements generally mathematical in nature Please be patient with the process and I will do my best to provide sourcing at least on this page and where needed in the article itself as well