[hist-analytic] Frrom AUNE: Analytic and A Priori

Roger Bishop Jones rbj at rbjones.com
Mon Mar 23 06:12:58 EDT 2009


I'm jumping in here to a thread I have not been watching
so I apologise if the question I am asking has already
been answered.

On Saturday 21 March 2009 14:34:40 Danny Frederick wrote:

>That is: I defined a priori knowledge as what can be known independently of
>the truth or falsity of inter-subjectively testable singular existential
>statements.

I understand that the notion of "inter-subjectively testable" is
Poppers, and that he uses it for demarcation of empirical science.

Is the identification of this demarcation with the a posteriori/a priori
distinction also Poppers, or is that your own?

It seems to me that something is lost in this identification,
and that there are two lines of demarcation here each of which
deserves a name. We have experiences which are not inter-subjectively
testable (otherwise Popper might not have introduced the term)
and that knowledge or supposed knowledge derived from
such experiences is not in the usual sense "a priori".

Do you agree that there is such a kind of experience and that
this has often (if not usually) been excluded from the
admissible basis for a priori knowledge, and if so can
you say anything about why you wish to admit such experience
as a basis for a priori knowledge?

Roger Jones




More information about the hist-analytic mailing list