, 12:151 | Cite as

A Priori and A Posteriori: A Bootstrapping Relationship

  • Tuomas E. TahkoEmail author


The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge has been the subject of an enormous amount of discussion, but the literature is biased against recognizing the intimate relationship between these forms of knowledge. For instance, it seems to be almost impossible to find a sample of pure a priori or a posteriori knowledge. In this paper, it will be suggested that distinguishing between a priori and a posteriori is more problematic than is often suggested, and that a priori and a posteriori resources are in fact used in parallel. We will define this relationship between a priori and a posteriori knowledge as the bootstrapping relationship. As we will see, this relationship gives us reasons to seek for an altogether novel definition of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Specifically, we will have to analyse the relationship between a priori knowledge and a priori reasoning, and it will be suggested that the latter serves as a more promising starting point for the analysis of aprioricity. We will also analyse a number of examples from the natural sciences and consider the role of a priori reasoning in these examples. The focus of this paper is the analysis of the concepts of a priori and a posteriori knowledge rather than the epistemic domain of a posteriori and a priori justification.


Euclidean Geometry Perceptual Information Empirical Information Gravitational Redshift Empirical Verification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Boghossian, P. and Peacocke, C. (Eds.) (2000) New Essays on the A Priori (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  2. BonJour, L. (1998) In Defense of Pure Reason: A Rationalist Account of A Priori Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  3. Casullo, A. (2003) A Priori Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fine, K. (1994) ‘Essence and modality’ In Tomberlin, J. E. (Ed.) Philosophical Perspectives 8 (Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview), pp. 1–16Google Scholar
  5. Horvath, J. (2009) ‘The Modal Argument for A Priori Justification’, Ratio, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kitcher, P. (1984) The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Kripke, S. (1980) Naming and Necessity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  8. McGinn, C. (1975–76) ‘“A Priori” and “A Posteriori” Knowledge’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 76, pp. 195–208.Google Scholar
  9. Peacocke, C. (2004) The Realm of Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  10. Priest, G. (2006) In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent, 2nd expanded ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tahko, T. E. (2008) ‘A New Definition of A Priori Knowledge: In Search of a Modal Basis’, Metaphysica, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 57–68.Google Scholar
  12. Tahko, T. E. (2009) ‘The Law of Non-Contradiction as a Metaphysical Principle’, The Australasian Journal of Logic, Vol. 7, pp. 32–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art StudiesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations