• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

A priori, A posteriori, which is better?

Extracts from this document...


A priori, A posteriori, which is better? I am writing to analyse which of these arguments is better. I will analyse the strengths and weaknesses of both and come to a final conclusion. A posteriori arguments are based on experience, an example of this is 'There is a football in my garden'. The statement 'There is a football in my garden' is synthetic, this is a statement which requires empirical verification. This argument is dependent on empirical verification. Empirical verification is a conclusion reached by using our sense. I can see the football using my eyes, I can feel the football using my hands so on and so fourth. The way we come to a conclusion with a posteriori arguments is using inductive reasoning. Inductive arguments never prove their conclusions just make you understand there probability. Inductive arguments also does not necessarily follow the premises. The strength of this argument is that anyone can go outside into my garden and test it themselves, it's universally acceptable. ...read more.


The probability of arguments is assessed very subjectively which is another negative point. However if there is a problem with any part of an a posteriori argument, either the premises the logic or the conclusion the argument does not fail it just needs changing, or to be looked upon from a different angle. This could happen with an argument based on something never seen before, something new. A priori arguments are based on definition. Typically a priori arguments are Analytic, statements which do not require empirical verification because they are true or false by definition. An example is 'All bachelors are unmarried men' or '1+2=3'. Analytic statements can be either true or false. To get to the conclusion of an a priori argument you use deductive reasoning which is a form of reasoning where the reasoning logically follows the premises to one conclusion. A priori arguments draw strength from the fact that they are based on agreed upon and fixed definitions and all thee arguments must lead to a single in controversial conclusion. ...read more.


However at times an a priori argument is not useful at all. What if I was arguing about a football being in my garden? I couldn't use an a priori argument because it isn't an argument based on definition which means in life I will be using a posteriori arguments more as they are based on my experiences and my senses. But then using an a posteriori argument it would mean that I have no final conclusion thanks to inductive reasoning. An example of this is if a car goes bye at 130mph (Guess we aren't in the UK) and no one saw it too well thanks to the dust clouds that blurred our vision. Now what car was it? I say t was a Lotus Elise because it was low down but my friend claims it was a Ferrari because it was red etc. I could do this all day but I am going to conclude that depending on what the circumstance needs both arguments have strong points and weak points. Adam Jaques R.S Mr Etheridge ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work