Final answer:
A post hoc hypothesis does not hold the same evidentiary value as an apriori hypothesis because it is formulated after observations and does not have predictive power. The validity of a hypothesis is tested based on whether it allows anticipation of experience, with empirical support enhancing its credibility.
Step-by-step explanation:
The evidentiary value of a post hoc hypothesis is not equivalent to that of an apriori hypothesis without a prediction. A post hoc hypothesis is formed after the data has been observed, which means it is generated based on the evidence at hand and therefore, might just be explaining the observed without any predictive capability.
In contrast, an apriori hypothesis is formulated before the data is collected, with a prediction about what the outcome will be if the hypothesis is true.
To test the validity of an empirical hypothesis, we look to see if it fulfills its function of enabling us to anticipate experience. If an observation matches our expectations, the hypothesis gains credibility, though it is not confirmed with absolute certainty.
Empirical evidence that repeatedly supports a hypothesis increases the likelihood that it is true without proving it conclusively.