A posteriori love

Доступ заблокирован, Доступ к информационному ресурсу ограничен на основании Федерального закона от 27 июля 2006 г. 149-ФЗ “Об информации, информационных технологиях и о защите информации”. IP-адрес данного ресурса заблокирован в соответствии с действующим законодательством. Доступ к информационному ресурсу ограничен на основании Федерального закона от 27 июля 2006 г. Доступ заблокирован, Доступ к информационному ресурсу ограничен на основании Федерального закона от 27 июля 2006 г. 149-ФЗ “Об информации, информационных технологиях и о защите информации”. IP-адрес данного ресурса заблокирован в соответствии с действующим законодательством. Доступ к информационному ресурсу ограничен на основании Федерального закона от 27 июля 2006 г. Jump to navigation Jump to search “Empirical” redirects here. This article possibly contains original research. Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.

Empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this regard, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use, in part, basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. 2 Perception, Observational Incommensurability, and World-Change. The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

A posteriori knowledge or justification depends on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge. There are many points of view on these two types of knowledge, and their relationship gives rise to one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy. However, “a priori” is sometimes used to modify other nouns, such as “truth”. Although definitions and use of the terms have varied in the history of philosophy, they have consistently labeled two separate epistemological notions. A priori Consider the proposition: “If George V reigned at least four days, then he reigned more than three days”. This is something that one knows a priori, because it expresses a statement that one can derive by reason alone. However, the analytic explanation of a priori knowledge has undergone several criticisms. Quine states: “But for all its a priori reasonableness, a boundary between analytic and synthetic statements simply has not been drawn. That there is such a distinction to be drawn at all is an unempirical dogma of empiricists, a metaphysical article of faith.

The metaphysical distinction between necessary and contingent truths has also been related to a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Following Kant, some philosophers have considered the relationship between aprioricity, analyticity, and necessity to be extremely close. According to Jerry Fodor, “Positivism, in particular, took it for granted that a priori truths must be necessary. Aprioricity, analyticity, and necessity have since been more clearly separated from each other. Kripke’s definitions of these terms, however, diverge in subtle ways from those of Kant. Taking these differences into account, Kripke’s controversial analysis of naming as contingent and a priori would, according to Stephen Palmquist, best fit into Kant’s epistemological framework by calling it “analytic a posteriori”. The relationship between aprioricity, necessity, and analyticity is not found to be easy to discern. Albert of Saxony, a 14th-century logician, wrote on both a priori and a posteriori. Meditations on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas”.

Kant nominated and explored the possibility of a transcendental logic with which to consider the deduction of the a priori in its pure form. Space, time and causality are considered pure a priori intuitions. After Kant’s death, a number of philosophers saw themselves as correcting and expanding his philosophy, leading to the various forms of German Idealism. One of these philosophers was Johann Fichte. Fichte who, because the thing-in-itself had just been discredited, at once prepared a system without any thing-in-itself. Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which “you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don’t have to do any science. In this pair of articles, Stephen Palmquist demonstrates that the context often determines how a particular proposition should be classified.

a posteriori love