Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
I think a healthy mix of the two - rather than making a judgement on which one should take priority - is a good way to go. Why force one into priority?
|
I did say mix them but you seem to imply a 50/50 mix. Ok. Explain how such a perfect balance is to be applied to a goal. What if
a priori only gets you so far and then
a posteriori gets you a little further - then what - deny the further evidence in order to maintain the arbitrary balance of 50/50? Or what if an
a priori claims an axiomatic principle or statement and then an
a poteriori claim contradicts it - what should you rely on?
Furthermore, why do you place equal weight towards
a priori vs
a posteriori?