Epistemology

====''A priori''–''a posteriori'' distinction====
{{Main|A priori and a posteriori}}
As mentioned above, epistemologists draw a distinction between what can be known ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' (independently of experience) and what can only be known ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a posteriori]]'' (through experience). Much of what we call ''a priori'' knowledge is thought to be attained through reason alone, as featured prominently in [[rationalism]]. This might also include a non-rational faculty of [[intuition]], as defended by proponents of [[innatism]]. In contrast, ''a posteriori'' knowledge is derived entirely through experience or as a result of experience, as emphasized in [[empiricism]]. This also includes cases where knowledge can be traced back to an earlier experience, as in memory or testimony.<ref name="SEP apriori"/>

A way to look at the difference between the two is through an example. Bruce Russell gives two propositions in which the reader decides which one he believes more.{{clarify|date=July 2020}} Option A: All crows are birds. Option B: All crows are black. If you believe option A, then you are ''a priori'' justified in believing it because you do not have to see a crow to know it is a bird. If you believe in option B, then you are ''a posteriori'' justified to believe it because you have seen many crows therefore knowing they are black. He goes on to say that it does not matter if the statement is true or not, only that if you believe in one or the other that matters.<ref name="SEP apriori"/>

The idea of ''a priori'' knowledge is that it is based on intuition or rational insights. Laurence BonJour says in his article "The Structure of Empirical Knowledge",<ref>BonJour, Laurence, 1985, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</ref> that a "rational insight is an immediate, non-inferential grasp, apprehension or 'seeing' that some proposition is necessarily true" (p.&nbsp;3). Going back to the crow example, by Laurence BonJour's definition the reason you would believe in option A is because you have an immediate knowledge that a crow is a bird, without ever experiencing one.

[[Evolutionary psychology]] takes a novel approach to the problem. It says that there is an innate predisposition for certain types of learning. "Only small parts of the brain resemble a [[tabula rasa]]; this is true even for human beings. The remainder is more like an exposed negative waiting to be dipped into a developer fluid".<ref>Wilson, E.O., [[Sociobiology: The New Synthesis]]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1975</ref>
Description	What you type	What you get
Italic	''Italic text''	Italic text
Bold	'''Bold text'''	Bold text
Bold & italic	'''''Bold & italic text'''''	*Bold & italic text*
Description	What you type	What you get
Reference	Page text.<ref>[https://www.example.org/ Link text], additional text.</ref>	Page text.^[1]
Named reference	Page text.<ref name="test">[https://www.example.org/ Link text]</ref>	Page text.^[2]
Additional use of the same reference	Page text.<ref name="test" />	Page text.^[2]
Display references	<references />	↑ Link text, additional text. ↑ Link text