more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Propositions such as 'People usually tell the truth' seem to count as default reasonable, but it is odd to count them as a priori. Empirical indefeasibility seems the obvious way to distinguish those default reasonable propositions that are a priori.
Clarification
'Indefeasible' means there are no counterexamples
Gist of Idea
Lots of propositions are default reasonable, but the a priori ones are empirically indefeasible
Source
Hartry Field (Apriority as an Evaluative Notion [2000], 1)
Book Ref
'New Essays on the A Priori', ed/tr. Boghossian,P /Peacocke,C [OUP 2000], p.120
A Reaction
Sounds reasonable, but it would mean that all the uniformities of nature would then count as a priori. 'Every physical object exerts gravity' probably has no counterexamples, but doesn't seem a priori (even if it is necessary). See Idea 9164.
Related Idea
Idea 9164 We treat basic rules as if they were indefeasible and a priori, with no interest in counter-evidence [Field,H]
| 9343 | To achieve pure knowledge, we must get rid of the body and contemplate things with the soul [Plato] |
| 3617 | I aim to find the principles and causes of everything, using the seeds within my mind [Descartes] |
| 5571 | Reason contains within itself certain underived concepts and principles [Kant] |
| 12418 | In long mathematical proofs we can't remember the original a priori basis [Kitcher] |
| 9342 | Understanding needs a priori commitment [Horwich] |
| 9160 | Lots of propositions are default reasonable, but the a priori ones are empirically indefeasible [Field,H] |
| 17714 | Aristotelians dislike the idea of a priori judgements from pure reason [Mares] |