9 a priority and inference

A PRIORI AND EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE

A distinction that is common in philosophy is that between a priori and empirical

knowledge (the latter is sometimes known as a posteriori knowledge). Very roughly, this
distinction relates to whether the knowledge in question was gained independently of an
investigation of the world through experience (what is known as an empirical inquiry). If it was,
then it is a priori knowledge; if it wasn’t, then it is empirical (or a posteriori) knowledge.
Suppose, for example, that I come to know that all bachelors are unmarried simply by
reflecting on the meanings of the words involved (e.g. that ‘bachelor’ just means unmarried man,
and thus it follows that all bachelors must be unmarried men). Given that I gained this
knowledge simply by reflecting on the meanings of the words involved rather than by
undertaking an investigation of the world, it is a priori knowledge.
Contrast my knowledge in this respect with my knowledge that the tropic of Cancer is in
the northern hemisphere, which I gained by looking in a reliable atlas. Since I gained this
knowledge by making an investigation of the world (i.e. by looking up the tropic of Cancer in an
atlas), this knowledge is thus empirical knowledge.
Notice that the same distinction also applies to justification. A belief is a priori justified if
that justification was gained independently of a worldly investigation (e.g. by reflecting on the
meanings of the words involved). In contrast, a belief is empirically justified if that justification
was gained via a worldly investigation (e.g. looking something up in an atlas).
One way in which this distinction is often made is to say that a priori knowledge
(/justification) is knowledge(/justification) that one gains simply by sitting in one’s armchair,
while empirical knowledge(/justification) demands that one get out of one’s armchair and make
further (empirical) inquiries. In this way we can see that it is not only truths of meaning (e.g. all
bachelors are unmarried) that one can have a priori knowledge of, but also other claims, such as
logical and mathematical truths. For example, we do not need to make empirical inquiries in
order to discern that two plus two equals four, since we can discover this simply by reflecting on
our mathematical concepts.
 Notice that any proposition which one can have a priori knowledge of one can also have
empirical knowledge of. For example, I could come to know that all bachelors are unmarried
men not by reflecting (in my armchair) on the meanings of the words involved but also by
looking up the meaning of the word ‘bachelor’ in a dictionary (i.e. by getting out of my armchair
and making an empirical inquiry). The converse of this is not true, however, in that it doesn’t
follow that any proposition which one can have empirical knowledge of one can also have a
priori knowledge of. The only way to find out which hemisphere the tropic of Cancer is in is by
getting out of one’s armchair and making an empirical investigation – this just isn’t the sort of
proposition that one can have a priori knowledge of.

THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF A PRIORI AND EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE

Most of our knowledge, even that knowledge which is explicitly empirical, makes use of
further knowledge which is both empirical and a priori. Imagine, for example, a detective who is
trying to work out who committed a murder, and who discovers, via the reliable testimony of a
witness, that one of the suspects – let’s call him Professor Plum – was in the pantry at the time of
the murder. Now the detective also knows that if someone is in one place at a certain time then
they can’t be in another place at the same time, and thus he infers that Professor Plum was not in
the hallway at the time of the murder, something that may well be very salient to the
investigation as a whole. (It might be known, for example, that the murder was committed in the
hallway, and thus that Professor Plum is off the hook.)
In this case, the detective is making the following sort of inference, where 1 and 2 are
premises from which a conclusion, C, is drawn:
1. Professor Plum was in the pantry at the time of the murder.
2. If Professor Plum was in the pantry at the time of the murder, then he wasn’t in the
hallway.
Therefore:
C Professor Plum was not in the hallway at the time of the murder (and so is innocent).

Let’s take it as given that both premises are known. The first premise of this inference, 1, is
clearly empirical knowledge since it was gained by listening to the testimony of a witness.
Premise 2, however, is not obviously empirical knowledge at all, since it seems to be something
that you could discover without making any investigation of the world. That is, merely by
reflecting on what it means to be located somewhere, you could realise that someone could not
be in two places at once and thus that if Professor Plum is in one place (in this case the pantry),
then he couldn’t also simultaneously be in another place (in this case the hallway). Indeed,
presumably, this is just how the detective came by this knowledge in this case, and so it is a
priori knowledge. The conclusion is obviously empirical knowledge, however, since it was
gained, in part, by making an empirical inquiry (i.e. listening to the testimony of a witness). So
although the inference in this case leads to empirical knowledge, it also makes use of a priori
knowledge as well.