Political Crossfire Forums

[Gus]

Is a priori knowledge possible?

[The Impeacher]

did the law of gravity exist before we discovered it?

the answer is yes to both questions...

but we still do not know what gravity really is, nor what causes it.

however, the key to understand "discovered knowledge" that may be considered to be a priori is that it is always subject to scientific analysis and criticism. the quagmire of the debate of inductive/deductive logic frankly just annoys the s**t out of me...

"proof" is overrated, and rhetorical logic is subject to fallacies inherenet in the language, moreso than is useful meaning.

but the main point is that theories are not the same as objective facts, but in most cases the distinction is not useful.

if knowledge is useful, it is knowledge. it's just that simple, imho.

[Savonarola]

Gus wrote: Is a priori knowledge possible?

how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? the world may never know.... :wink:

[Saf]

The Impeacher wrote: did the law of gravity exist before we discovered it?
Gravity is an a posteriori concept, derived from empirical experience. You need to learn the difference between a priori and a posteriori.

[The Impeacher]

Saf wrote: The Impeacher wrote: did the law of gravity exist before we discovered it?
Gravity is an a posteriori concept, derived from empirical experience. You need to learn the difference between a priori and a posteriori.

no,

you confuse the concept with the "discovery" of gravity.

would you argue gravity does not exist, and is not constant?

did gravity exist before our knowledge of it did?

[LostSoul3412]

What is truth?

Truth in and of itself is a fallacy. Humanity's perception of "truth" what the collective body believes to be true. Regardless of how much proof there is to the law of gravity, it is still based on math, which is based on numbers, which are human inventions, and since humanity is flawed, their creations are also flawed. Everything is only what we believe it to be. So, in a way, science is a religion.

Priori knowledge is already discovered, the only thing stopping it is the concept of truth.

For example:

2+2=4

Why? Who decided that 2 is 2? Who decided that 2 more than 2 is 4? Sure, it makes things much more convenient to believe in a system of numbers that decides trivial things like this for us, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

Knowledge is something that only you can decide for yourself. And the only constant in the universe is that there is no constant.

[Saf]

The Impeacher wrote:
no,

you confuse the concept with the "discovery" of gravity.

would you argue gravity does not exist, and is not constant?

did gravity exist before our knowledge of it did?
A priori knowledge can be deduced from reason alone. The law of gravity is induced as a hypothesis which correlates to empirical data. Just because it is a posteriori doesn't mean it wasn't true before we knew about it. However, it isn't necessary, as all a priori truths are. For instance, we can imagine a situation devoid of gravity: the vaccuum of space.

As the American Heritage Dictionary defines them:
A priori - Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
A posteriori - Knowable from experience.

Your conception of a priori is incorrect.

EDIT:

To answer the OP's question: does 2 + 2 = 4? If so, a priori knowledge is possible.

[The Impeacher]

Saf wrote: The Impeacher wrote:
no,

you confuse the concept with the "discovery" of gravity.

would you argue gravity does not exist, and is not constant?

did gravity exist before our knowledge of it did?
A priori knowledge can be deduced from reason alone. The law of gravity is induced as a hypothesis which correlates to empirical data. Just because it is a posteriori doesn't mean it wasn't true before we knew about it. However, it isn't necessary, as all a priori truths are. For instance, we can imagine a situation devoid of gravity: the vaccuum of space.

As the American Heritage Dictionary defines them:
A priori - Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
A posteriori - Knowable from experience.

Your conception of a priori is incorrect.

EDIT:

To answer the OP's question: does 2 + 2 = 4? If so, a priori knowledge is possible.

and your conception of knowledge is incorrect, and my understanding a priori knowledge is no different what you have argued.


however, you Kant seem to understand what knowledge really is. hint.

i ask again, did gravity, and its physical properties exist before we "discovered" it?

[Gus]

The Impeacher wrote: i ask again, did gravity, and its physical properties exist before we "discovered" it?
How would we know?

[RueTheDay]

Gus wrote: The Impeacher wrote: i ask again, did gravity, and its physical properties exist before we "discovered" it?
How would we know?

Exactly. The Impeacher is completely missing the point that whether knowledge of gravity is a priori or a posteriori has nothing to do with whether or not gravity existed before humans discovered it and everything to do with whether our knowledge of it was innate or was based upon sense experience. I've been down this road with him before, it's a waste of time - he misunderstands the fundamental concepts of epistemology.

[LostSoul3412]

Regardless of whether we know it or not, there is something holding us to this world. To many, including myself, that force is called gravity. But is it really called gravity, or is that just what people call it to make sense of the world around them? I say again, a priori knowledge is both possible, and it does happen. Just because someone doesn not know the fundamental laws of gravity, does not mean that they are unaware of the force holding them down to this Earth.

It all comes back to the concept of truth. And the only truth, is that there's no truth.

[Saf]

The Impeacher wrote: i ask again, did gravity, and its physical properties exist before we "discovered" it?
I am sorry that you cannot understand basic concepts covered in Philosophy 101. A priori and a posteriori do not describe when things exist, but the manner in which we know them. The law of gravity is INDUCED from static physical principles, and is therefore a posteriori.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Existance of knowledge is diffrencent from the mind being able to deduce that knowledge.

A prori knowledge requires deduction, it isunt just 'there' when you first become concious.

And i would answer yes, the cogitio is an example of prori knowledge.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Saf wrote: The Impeacher wrote: i ask again, did gravity, and its physical properties exist before we "discovered" it?
I am sorry that you cannot understand basic concepts covered in Philosophy 101. A priori and a posteriori do not describe when things exist, but the manner in which we know them. The law of gravity is INDUCED from static physical principles, and is therefore a posteriori.

Exaclty by your definitions impeacher it would be impossible to have any a posterori knowledge as all things are allready innate to the universe.

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: A prori knowledge requires deduction, it isunt just 'there' when you first become concious.

The point is that some starting position, some fundamental axiom or axioms, must exist from which to deduce a priori knowledge. You can't deduce something from nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Quote:
And i would answer yes, the cogitio is an example of prori knowledge.

Yes, that would probably be a good example. Now tell me, what FURTHER knowledge can you deduce from "consciousness"?

[The Impeacher]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Saf wrote: The Impeacher wrote: i ask again, did gravity, and its physical properties exist before we "discovered" it?
I am sorry that you cannot understand basic concepts covered in Philosophy 101. A priori and a posteriori do not describe when things exist, but the manner in which we know them. The law of gravity is INDUCED from static physical principles, and is therefore a posteriori.

Exaclty by your definitions impeacher it would be impossible to have any a posterori knowledge as all things are allready innate to the universe.

hahaha,

you guys crack me up. why don't you try a little philospohy 104, critical thinking, plus maybe into look into Immanuel Kant and the difference between the idea of a thing, and the thing-in-itself.

aka, the differnce between a sufficient truth, and necessary truth.

you confuse truth for knowledge, and seem to think only scientific fact is knowledge...

and you are WRONG.

knowledge is the intersection of belief and truth, and not exclusive to either condition.

[The Impeacher]

Gus wrote: The Impeacher wrote: i ask again, did gravity, and its physical properties exist before we "discovered" it?
How would we know?

and what causes gravity? what do we know other than its properties?

i ask you, what is knowledge?

how do you know?

:lol:

[The Impeacher]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: [...] as all things are allready innate to the universe.

how do you know they are not?

and yet you said

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Existance of knowledge is diffrencent from the mind being able to deduce that knowledge.

hmmm. a self-proclaimed fan a Locke arguing aginst a priori knowledge is an inherent paradox... that much is self-evident!

:lol:

[Saf]

I cannot refute a nonargument. Your Sophist comments amount to nothing but a vague misunderstanding of concepts and thinkers whose names you throw around in an attempt to seem cogent.

[The Impeacher]

Saf wrote: I cannot refute a nonargument. Your Sophist comments amount to nothing but a vague misunderstanding of concepts and thinkers whose names you throw around in an attempt to seem cogent.

haha,

wittgenstein and popper were having a virtual iron poker fight for clearing the science from the normative philosophy, that you then took it to mean that science and objective scientific fact is the only realm of knowledge is the sign of your lesser mind.

:lol:

for example, if one does not believe in evolution due to their blind faith in the bible, can we say that they have knowledge of evolution?

does not one have to believe in facts or "truths" for them to be considered knowledge?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

wake up to coherency, your epistomolgy is stuck in the 1950's, friend.