knowledge can be deduced theoretically without empirical evidence — Kamikaze Butter
I think that the "a priori" moves from language to reality, about stating the possibility of a fact; and the "a posterior" moves from reality to language. — Belter
Apriori statements look like they're saying something empirical (like they're a discovery about the world), but actually they aren't. — gurugeorge
What about 'synthetic a priori' statements? I think they're central to science. — Wayfarer
the apriori looks like knowledge, but actually is just the description of a model — gurugeorge
What about 'synthetic a priori' statements? I think they're central to science. — Wayfarer
All truths are analytic, it just depends on how well acquainted we are with the things subsumed by the concept — gurugeorge
Dirac's research marked the first time something never before seen in nature was predicte – that is, postulated to exist based on theoretical rather than experimental evidence. His discovery was guided by the human imagination, and arcane mathematics.
For his achievement Dirac was awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 1933 at the age of 31.
which are not themselves strictly entailed in their postulates — Wayfarer
But isn't mathematics paradigmatically a practice that draws out what's implicit in postulates? It's just that what's implicit in physics models often isn't obvious. — gurugeorge
My old philosophy prof. offered a definition of a priori as follows: that which is universally and necessarily so. As opposed to a posteriori, that which is known empirically, from experience. I assume this is all well-known here. — tim wood
The issue I find relevant in this dichotomy is whether ALL knowledge is one of the two or a combination of both. — TheMadFool
Also there seems to be some form of deep connection between our conceptual models, especially math, and the real world outside. Does this count for anything? — TheMadFool
So I think the significance of the 'synthetic a priori' is that it provides a kind of deductive certainty with respect to some actual state of affairs - so it applies to the empirical domain, rather than for example the domain of pure mathematics. — Wayfarer
A priori knowledge seems to be most clearly present in the conceptual models we create (math, logic) but it's debatable whether this form of implication by necessity of rules and definitions counts as real knowledge.
A posteriori knowledge seems not so clearly delineated as all knowledge requires mapping of concepts onto the world external and finding relations between them.
Also there seems to be some form of deep connection between our conceptual models, especially math, and the real world outside. Does this count for anything? — TheMadFool
if we find that reality works in the way our mathematical model projected, then reality has that logical structure — gurugeorge
Reality has a "real" structure (for example, elementary waves-particles and forces) like logic has a "logical" one. You are mixing the structure of the model with the structure of the modeled. In your rationalist view, it would be possible, for example, to demonstrate that reality is or not consistent, complete, etc., which in my view is a nonsense. — Belter
Reality's "real structure" can be consistent, complete, etc., — gurugeorge
How it is possible to prove logical properties in something that is not a logic (a formal language constructed by humans)? — Belter
Again, this just presupposes that logic is a property only of formal systems we construct — gurugeorge
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.