Question

I was thinking over the concept of a priory reasoning coming from intuition that comes from the development of our intuitions through the duration of our lifes. Therefore Natural Heuristics does no guarantee proper logic, but just some reasoning in based in intuitions trained and contingent by Empirical Observations. Therefore there may or may no be a Proper logic of thought but only empirical facts and functional heuristics. Have someone already tackle this attack to Logic itself and resolved it, what books should read about that, how they solved that? It is common to distinguish what is a priori knowable from what is a posteriori knowable. The distinction itself is not really what needs defending. Rather, there are many advocates of radical empiricism, such as early Quine, who question whether anything is truly a priori at all. So, what needs defending is the possibility of the a priori. One might attempt to defend the possibility of a priori knowledge by appeal to innate intuitions or perhaps, with Kant, as arising from some kind of fundamental category of understanding. But such attempts run contrary to the modern preference for scientific explanations, preferably of the reductive kind. If we try to explain our intuitions in terms of our experiences, or from our genetic inheritance, there is a huge plausibility gap. Our ancient ancestors' ability to survive and thrive has far more to do with their capacity to climb trees, use tools, and migrate long distances than it has with the performing of abstract reasoning. Also, studies by psychologists such as Kahneman and Tversky have shown that human beings are not particularly good at reasoning. We are subject to all kinds of cognitive biases. And specific tests of ability to solve problems have shown that people are pretty bad at logic, and spectacularly bad at reasoning with probabilities. But all is not hopeless for defenders of the a priori. Some modern philosophers have defended the idea that we do have a priori knowledge based on rational insight. One of these is Laurence BonJour "In Defense of Pure Reason", Cambridge University Press (1998). Also, Robert Hanna, "Rationality and Logic", MIT Press (2006) advocates the view that logic is cognitively constructed and that humans are essentially rational animals. A. Laurence BonJour - In Defense of Pure Reason" (1998) B. Robert Hanna - "Rationality and Logic" (2006) C. Immanuel Kant - "Critique of Pure Reason" D. W. V. O. Quine - "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"

Answer 1

The question touches upon the debate on a priori knowledge versus empiricism in philosophy. Philosophers like Laurence BonJour and Immanuel Kant defend a priori knowledge, while radical empiricists like Quine question its existence. The discussion incorporates themes of intuition, cognitive biases, and the role of experience in shaping reasoning.

Step-by-step explanation:

The main answer to the question revolves around the validation of a priori knowledge in the face of challenges posed by radical empiricism. While a priori knowledge does not require experience and is often associated with reason alone, the concept goes beyond mere innate understanding. Figures such as Laurence BonJour, Robert Hanna, and Immanuel Kant have contributed significantly to the defense and elaboration of a priori knowledge. Moreover, studies in cognitive psychology, like those by Kahneman and Tversky, reveal that humans have cognitive biases and often struggle with probabilities and logic, suggesting that empirical observations and experiences critically shape our reasoning and heuristics.Additionally, a priori knowledge can come from common sense or intuition, which philosophers historically have held as significant sources of understanding, differentiating it from mere gut feelings. Intuitive knowledge of mathematical truths, such as 2 + 2 = 4, is often presented as an example of a priori knowledge. However, common sense approaches and reliance on sense perceptions are also pivotal to our comprehension. For more on this topic, texts like BonJour's "In Defense of Pure Reason" and Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" provide in-depth discussion on the rationalist perspective, while Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" leans towards an empiricist view, questioning the foundation of a priori knowledge itself.In conclusion, while philosophical thinking often appeals to intuition and common sense, the defense of a priori knowledge is also firmly rooted in reason and has been subject to debate and analysis within the philosophical community.