Talk:A priori and a posteriori

message: 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)
thread_title: Grammar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mergers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Clean up

message: 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)
thread_title: Expansion

message: 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)
thread_title: More stuff about empirical knowledge, citation

message: 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)
thread_title: More stuff about philosophy - basics/background

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Okay. That isn't liable to be difficult. Prokaryote 21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issues

message: 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)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: 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)
thread_title: Terms in Euclid's Elements

message: 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)
thread_title:  definition 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hyphen? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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  template. :) Nor should this one. A priori knowledge is a priori knowledge. --Quuxplusone 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What a big painting! 

message: 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)
replies: text: The italics should help avoid confusion. I doubt using a hyphen is proper. –Pomte 15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: 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)
thread_title:  two plus two = 4 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Synthetic Apriori 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statements that are a priori true are WHAT?  

message: 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)
thread_title: David Hume

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, at least that problem has been fixed! ;-) yoyo (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence

message: 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)
thread_title:  bachelors example 

message: 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)
thread_title: Retained Art/Architecture Content

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jerry Fodor Citation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Analyticity and necessity - faulty concluding sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title: Evidence (scientific empiricism) and Apriori Knowledge 

message: 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 <scita> ante/post experientiam, knowledge <having been known> 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  These terms are grammatically incorrect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article contains examples which are wrong. 

message: The following in the lede strikesme as inappropriate in the lede and badly phrased:Philogo (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede 

message: Isn't this page confusing a priori</a> knowledge with definitions? I thought a priori</a> 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)
thread_title:  By Definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  awkward sentence? 

message: -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. PhilPapers, Metaphysics > Objects > Identity, Identity, Edited by Chad Carmichael (Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis), About this topic,Summary	Identity is sameness: the relation that holds between each thing and itself, and never holds between two things. Most philosophical issues about identity concern the relationship between identity and other important concepts: time, necessity, personhood, composition (parthood), indiscernibility, and vagueness. In addition to these issues, some have suggested that identity is not absolute, but relative, so that we may say two things are the same person or statue, but not the same simpliciter. Finally, there are questions about whether there must always be informative criteria of identity that settle questions about when identity holds or fails to hold
*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)
thread_title:  Change 2nd sentence 2nd paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources and future reading 

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

message: :More than one instance of "A priori and a posteriori" in the "External links" will likely prove redundancy. 
:There are six entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number to push for adding links and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. Another problem is adding links just to add them if they do not follow the content guideline.
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . -- Otr500 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links