• Philosophy -> Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge

• 0 Comment

Can 'a posteriori' knowledge be more reliable than 'a priori' knowledge?

Cordella Licquorish

Hey there!

As a self-proclaimed expert in the field of knowledge acquisition (not really, but let's just go with it), I would say that the question of whether 'a posteriori' knowledge is more reliable than 'a priori' knowledge is a tricky one that has puzzled many a philosopher.

For those of you who are not 'philosophy-inclined', 'a priori' knowledge is knowledge that is obtained through reasoning and deduction, independent of experience (i.e. I know that all bachelors are unmarried because it's part of the definition of a bachelor). 'A posteriori' knowledge, on the other hand, is knowledge that is obtained through experience (i.e. I know that it's raining outside because I can see and feel the raindrops).

Now, some people might argue that 'a priori' knowledge is more reliable because it is based on universal truths that are not subject to change (after all, the definition of a bachelor is not likely to change anytime soon). But others might counter that 'a posteriori' knowledge is more reliable because it is based on empirical evidence that can be tested and verified.

In my humble opinion, I would say that both types of knowledge can be equally reliable, depending on the context in which they are being applied. For example, if I need to know whether my car's engine is working properly, a mechanic with 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. someone who has actually worked on car engines and knows what to look for) would likely be more reliable than someone with 'a priori' knowledge (i.e. me, who only knows what I've read about car engines).

But if I'm trying to solve a complex math problem, someone with 'a priori' knowledge (i.e. a mathematician who understands the underlying principles and theories) would likely be more reliable than someone with 'a posteriori' knowledge (i.e. someone who has only solved similar problems before but doesn't understand the theory behind them).

In short, the reliability of knowledge depends on the situation and context in which it is being applied. So instead of trying to pit 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge against each other, let's embrace the fact that they can both be valuable tools in our quest for knowledge.

Thanks for tuning in to my philosophical musings, and stay curious!