No place for the a priori
|Abstract||Why believe in the a priori? The answer is clear: there are many examples, drawn from mathematics, logic and philosophy, of knowledge that does not seem to be empirical. It does not seem possible that this knowledge could be justified or revised “by experience.” It must be justified in some other way, justified a priori.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Pat Manfredi (2000). The Compatibility of a Priori Knowledge and Empirical Defeasibility: A Defense of a Modest a Priori. Southern Journal of Philosophy 38 (S1):179-189.
Philip Kitcher (2000). A Priori Knowledge Revisited. In Paul Boghossian & Christopher Peacocke (eds.), New Essays on the a Priori. Oxford Up.
Lisa Warenski (2009). Naturalism, Fallibilism, and the a Priori. Philosophical Studies 142 (3):403 - 426.
Glen Hoffmann (2011). Two Kinds of A Priori Infallibility. Synthese 181 (2):241-253.
John Turri (2011). Contingent A Priori Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):327-344.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2011). A Priori and A Posteriori: A Bootstrapping Relationship. Metaphysica 12 (2):151-164.
Robin Jeshion (2000). On the Obvious. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2):333 - 355.
Robin Jeshion (2000). On the Obvious. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2):333-355.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads48 ( #22,874 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?