0
A priori knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is acquired independently of any particular experience, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which is derived from experience.
Zachary Lukasiewicz
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is a priori prediction?
a prediction about outcome that is predited. Such as weather forecast
A sentence using hypothesis?
The trick of course is to find an alternative a priori hypothesis.
What is a system of knowledge and the methods used to find that knowledge?
Science is a system of knowledge and the methods used to find that knowledge.
What is the difference between knowledge and science?
All science is knowledge but not all knowledge is science.
What does it mean to have practical hands on knowledge?
Not book knowledge. Knowledge acquired by experimenting or testing by yourself.
What does it mean for a claim to be a posteriori?
A priori claims are those you can know independent of experience. ... Whereas a priori claims seem to be justified based on pure thought or reason, a posteriori claims are justified based on experience. We can only know a posteriori claims after experience. Here are some a posteriori claims: The triangle is blue.
Was kierkegaard a empiricist?
No. Soren Kierkegaard held an a priori view of knowledge (true knowledge CAN be justified apart from experience). In contrast Empiricists hold to an a posteriori view (true knowledge CANNOT be justified apart from experience).
Who knows 3 examples of priori knowledge and Empirical knowledge?
Priori knowledge examples: Posteriori examples: 1. today is Thursday It is snowing outside 2. all boys are males The fruit is an apple 3. all bachelors are unmarried The wood is rough and hard the only priori knowledge I am aware of are mathmetical truths such as 2 +2 = 4 because they are true without expirimentation or observation.
What is the meaning of a posteriori?
(from the effect to the cause)..Inductive reasoning. Priori- (from the cause to the effect)..Deductive reasoning
What is a key characteristic of knowledge?
Knowledge can be divided into a priori knowledge, which does not require observation of the world, and a posteriori or empirical knowledge, which collected by observing or interacting with the world.
What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori?
A priori means that you can immediately know whether or not it is true. You don't need to check it with your senses. For example: A single is not married. You don't need to see a single to know whether or not he is married. A posteriori means that you need to check it with your senses to know whether or not it is true. For example: grass is green. When you have nothing but this phrase, you don't know if grass is green.
Can thinking and learning be the same thing?
This is quite a deep philosophical question! The answer may well be subjective but I would suggest that they can be.In philosophy there are two types of knowledge known as "a priori" & "a posteriori".A priori knowledge is independent of experience. That is to say that it can be determined by pure reason (i.e. thinking) alone. An example might be: If I told you that A was bigger than B and that B was bigger than C, you could reason that A was therefore bigger than C.A posteriori knowledge can not be known purely by rational thought. It requires experience/empirical evidence to test its truth. For example: If I told you that I was taller than you, we could not determine the truth of this statement purely by thought alone; we would need to measure our heights.The above examples may not be the best that could be given but hopefully they show the difference. It should be up to you to determine if you agree completely with this. If you do then the answer to your question is that we can learn a priori knowledge purely by thinking.
Is logical necessary truth examples of posteriori knowledge?
yes
What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori arguments?
A priori means that you can immediately know whether or not it is true. You don't need to check it with your senses. For example: A single is not married. You don't need to see a single to know whether or not he is married. A posteriori means that you need to check it with your senses to know whether or not it is true. For example: grass is green. When you have nothing but this phrase, you don't know if grass is green.
If a Tadpole become a frog is it an example of a posteriori knowledge?
This answer is absolutely true!
What does aquinas say about the ontological argument?
He disagrees. He thinks God's existence is not self evident and needs verification from the empirical world. Arguements for God's existence must be a posteriori, not a priori
Is religion a science?
Surprisingly, religion is a science. It is NOT an experimental or laboratory-based science, but it IS a system of knowledge. This is not the most common use of the word, but it not an inappropriate use either. Thinking this way should not lead anyone to conclude that religious or theological knowledge can be or must be gained by standard scientific methods.Another PerspectiveReligion is not a science. While it is true that science means 'knowledge' in latin, science is a systematic gathering of knowledge. Religious belief systems are based on faith and not knowledge. To believe is to accept something as true or real. Belief is the acceptance of the truth or actuality of anything without certain proof. Belief is a mental conviction. Religious belief is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny in the complete absence of any proof. That is not science. AlsoUsing a broad enough definition of "science" anything one can learn can be considered a "science." This includes:PhysicsChemistryReligionBasket weavingPhilosophyReading/Writing (literacy)PaintingDirecting TrafficPicking cottonUsing such a broad definition of the word renders is meaningless. Instead, a narrower (but still probably too broad in the opinion of many scientists) definition may be of more use:Science is a logical, dynamic system of knowledge, the purpose of which is to further our understanding, and explain why things are or how they happen.This definition does not necessarily exclude all non-laboratory-based fields of study.While religion does make an attempt to explain why and how things are the way they are, the failings of religion are that it is a static system, in which information does not change (only the interpretation of it does), and that religion is not logic-based. In religious thinking, logic need not apply, as faith must always take precedence.Another key point here is that not all knowledge is equal. There are two general categories of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori. A priori knowledge is independent from experience or evidence, it is considered to be obviously or necessarily true. A posteriori knowledge is that knowledge which is based on experience or evidence.Religion deals almost exclusively with a priori knowledge -- that which is merely assumed to be true. The fickle thing about a priori knowledge is that despite how "obviously true" knowledge may be, because this knowledge is based on rhetoric and reasoning that is subject to human biases, a self-contradictory system may be built from a priori knowledge.Science seeks to minimize use of a priori knowledge in favor of a posteriori knowledge. Science starts with the assumption that the universe is not self-contradictory (i.e. logic applies). With this assumption, no a posteriori knowledge can be inconsistent with any other a posteriori knowledge (all observations come from the same self-consistent engine), although humans can certainly misinterpret the observations. In science, error and uncertainty only exist due to misinterpretations or ambiguities in the body of a posteriori knowledge, usually because the same observation may be the result of one of several causes.For example, many early scientists believed the Sun moved around the Earth because it appeared to be the simpler of two possibilities which would both support the observations. Either the sun moved around the Earth, or the Earth spun around the Sun. When more observations were made, particularly with respect to the motions of other planets, it was found that the second explanation was by far simpler, and so today no scientist believes the Sun to move around the Earth.The short answer is: The only way religion can be considered a science is if the definition of "science" is watered down enough to render it meaningless.
