2134:
science to prove a theory that x (physical being/thing)is y is either apriori or a false claim. When science doubts human experience through his senses for being unreliable to know the objective truth of the physical world it alleviates scientific evidence to a level more than senses. However, this situation is self contradictory in so far as the scientists ultimately rely on their own senses to grasp\experience and understand the evidence at hand. If one can reject senses and the experience derived through the medium of senses is unreliable (according to science) then there is no way man can ever learn the objective truth of the physical world. How do you know if a glass of orange juice is infact orange juice? Scienctific evidence does not prove if orange juice is orange juice. whatever evidence experiments reveal could be anything but the objective truth. This is that fact that man has a physical limitation so far as his ability to perceive the world outside of him i.e man cannot do away with his senses and continue perceving the world. This leaves only two possibilities so far as truth revealed by scientific evidence. Evidence by itself does not prove anything. Humans first believe in something (apriori) and then look for justification acceptable to all his peers. If some evidence is acceptable to all then they claim the truth proved by the evidence. or They simply claim x is proof y. There is no way this can be either proved or disproved..same like God or spirit or ghost.
2007:(genius logic) were leading general principals of a very effective movement (especially in architecture), called āNeo-Rationalismā or New Rationalism, was one of the most powerful movement throughout the world beginning from Italy. Its pioneer is Italian architect Aldo Rossi and followers like Giorgio Grassi. Neo-Rationalism developed in the light of a re-evaluation of the work of Giuseppe Terragni led by Aldo Rossi, and gained momentum through the work of Giorgio Grassi. Characterized by elemental forms of vernacular and an absence of cosmetic detail, the Neo Rationalist style has adherents beginning from the architectural world then into other worlds of Art throughout European, American and Asian Cultures. Later, the movement calls,
815:
happened. There is also a change for a posteriori, moving from essence to contingent fact to likelihood of dependant event. Still, without the framework of
Aristotle there is not any 'beginning' of the field save for Plato's many stories. Organon includes other elements: ontology, classification, etc beyond Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics that provide a basis for categorical logic and even include basics of statistics (but without numbers). The chapters on Prior and Posterior Analytics should be mentioned at the least in this article.
3414:
relationship between identity and other important concepts: time, necessity, personhood, composition (parthood), indiscernibility, and vagueness. In addition to these issues, some have suggested that identity is not absolute, but relative, so that we may say two things are the same person or statue, but not the same simpliciter. Finally, there are questions about whether there must always be informative criteria of identity that settle questions about when identity holds or fails to hold
200:
427:
406:
378:
362:
2798:
2585:
1099:
having a section on its own regarding Kant's theory, and then having a different section on the whole relation to analyticity and necessity. I also think that the "Aprioricity, analyticity, and necessity" section should be a sub heading instead of a sub-sub heading. I would motion to have this stuff put in the article (just below the "Rationalism and empiricism" section, of course). What do you think? --
2760:
3167:". The google test would require that a significant fraction of the 31M+ web pages with "a priori" also refer to archetypes. (The google test with "Jung" is inappropriate, as there seems to be some English word which google considers cognate to "Jung". Without a more detailed query restricting word-forms, I cannot determine whether there are the nearly 1M web pages claimed.) ā
2947:
706:"The proposal 'every living human has a brain' is based on a priori knowledge, since we don't have to perform surgery in order to justify it. On the other hand, the proposal 'the light bulb is currently illuminated' is based on a posteriori knowledge, namely our experience of what a light bulb and its surrounding environment looks like when an active source of light is present".
1278:
Posteriori' as "from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data". It doesn't necessarily have to, however, imply 'experience' but rather before or after being posited. Such as a dialectical 'a priori synthesis' in an idealistic dialectic; i.e. a synthesis having always been there and only separated by abstraction.
191:
700:
this specific example, whether the knowledge used to justify the proposal is empirical is debatable, since it comes from ab initio mathmatical proofs and "thought experiments". In order for the justifying knowledge to be considered a posteriori the experiments would (arguably) have needed to be based on experience and provide observable and measurable results.
264:
233:
1802:
language, as long as the correct notions are conveyed. Bachelor does not mean "unmarried," it means "unmarried male," and therefore this is not a straight definition, though it is a tautology (though both definitions and tautologies constitute a priori knowledge). A similar example would be that the sum of the angles in a triangle must equal 180 degrees.
274:
1129:
distinction. I thought of "rational" and "transcendental" in place of "conceptual", but the first still maybe doesn't reflect Kant's position (I think he regarded "rational" theories as examples of transcendental dialectic or something) while the second is odd-sounding (outside of the context of Kant's usage).
2254:
A reliable source on grammar is someone who knows the grammar. A set which obviously includes only one of the two of us. Thanks for your completely pointless comment which suggests nothing of use, and which is presumed upon a suggestion I didn't actually make. You've made an ass of yourself in record
1646:
The example put by the definition of a priori knowledge is argued to be a posteriori as well, since a human being to the base needs some sort of language to even think about certain things. So therefore, a human being also needs language to think about 2 + 2 = 4, so, a posteriori, since a language is
999:
This is starting to look great. However, the stuff about Kant could do with some reconfigurationāI'm not sure that, for example, "In this way, Kant considered... all synthetic propositions to be contingent propositions," is the best way to put that. Part of Kant's theory of aprioricity was that there
963:
Yeah, I wish I had
Leibniz himself on this... All I've got is Quine's statement that Leibniz regarded truths as divided into the two categories listed. Maybe the note could read something like, "Quine, 1951, Ā§1. In his paper, Quine referred to theories of Hume and Leibniz regarding what he took to be
3260:
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate spot to add a comment about the structure/grammar of just one particular sentence. I just mean to make a note about it, not to be nit-picky. I would edit it myself, however, I don't know enough about the topic to rewrite the sentence and be absolutely sure that
2924:
The particular source seems to depend on the reliability of the (unnamed) translator from German to
Italian, and as to whether Ā«a prioriĀ» is an Italian phrase (in which case the non-translation from Italian to English is unjustified) or a borrowed Latin phrase. However, even assuming the reliability
799:
Right now, the article is focused on apriority. That's... problematic. Also, I'm (right now) not so hot when it comes to citation. I mean, I want to do it, and do it right, but I don't have the much in the way of resources (aside from secondhanding the SEP/IEP, but I want to ask the relevant authors
699:
The example used in the first paragraph states: "'No light escapes black holes,' is a theory deduced from empirical physics". Although the example is used in support of a priori knowledge, the phrasing, especially the use of the word "empirical" seems to relate it to a posteriori knowledge. Also, in
598:
In the intro paragraph, the explanation of the generally meanings of the terms should be left open. Thus, I figured (a) that it should say "dependent" instead of "based" (that's irrespective of
Prokaryote's changes) and (b) that it should be left open what "experience" means. Anyhow, experience in
3476:
There are six entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number to push for adding links and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. Another problem is adding links just to add them if they do not follow
1801:
I think this example is correct, and a good one. Yes, understanding it requires knowledge of
English, but so does the entire article. What we are talking about here is the "notion" of a bachelor as an unmarried male (unmarried and male also being "notions"). Therefore this example would work in any
1335:
Sure there is: ask a classicist. My one quarter of college Latin hardly qualifies me as such, but I believe the first pronunciation above is the "correct" one. But then, "alumni" would be pronounced ah-loom-nee, yet most people (including me) say uh-lum-nye. I think both of the above, and any other
646:
Man, I have a lot of punctuation (of mine) to clean up, then. To note: the
Knowledge manual of style still recommends writing full sentences with the periods, etc. within the quotation marks (except for questions about statements). As for the learning thing: I've been under the impression (right or
499:
Changed "she would not experience the world as an orderly rule governed place" to "she would not experience the world as an orderly, rule-governed place." The phrase was annoying to read as it was unclear as well as grammatically incorrect. I also added a hyphen to "rule governed place" because the
2079:
In the subsection "Relation to the analytic-synthetic", after quoting Quine, the article says: "Analytic propositions are thought to be true in virtue of their meaning alone, while a priori synthetic propositions are thought to be true in virtue of their meaning and certain facts about the world."
2044:
Would the idea that George V must have reigned for at least a day if at all have to be based on some understanding that the word "reigned" directly implies this in order to be a priori? If so, and if "reigned" does not imply a minimum length of one day, the suggestion could be added that something
1098:
I made some changes to your suggested revision. I mostly tried to organize, add some things, and remove some things in order to tie all of it together into the relation to the a priori and a posteriori (such as relating it all to Kant's theory of pure intuition). I like the idea of going back to
656:
Updating the learning thing: the SEP article on belief includes the following sentence: "When someone learns a particular fact, for example, when Kai reads that some astronomers no longer classify Pluto as a planet, he acquires a new belief (in this case, the belief that some astronomers no longer
2269:
I'm sure it wasn't time wasted, it seems to have made you feel better about yourself. I think, reading your first sentence in the preceding comment, that you are operating under an incomplete understanding of
Knowledge policy. Allow me to rephrase. Your reading of the subject is at odds with this
953:"References and further reading" section, and then just refer to those in the endnotes of the "Notes" section. Hope that sounds good. A quetsion for Prokaryote though: Why did you make the Quine citation under some info about Leibniz? Maybe it should be more clear why you're citing Quine there. -
3496:
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of
Knowledge. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major
922:
The statement "Both terms appear in Euclid's
Elements" should be re-phrased. We are dealing with two Latin phrases, but Euklid's Elements are originally written in Ancient Greek. Either it should be stated that the original concepts are mentioned there (but not with these phrases), or that these
1665:
Suggest a seperate section on the highly controvertial area of the synthetic apriori. I searched wiki, expecting to find a seperate article on the subject but was re-directed to the synthetic/analytic distinction, an awful article, so came here, a little better, but dont you think the synthetic
1514:
Am I the only one that feels this article is especially confusing? Surely the concept of a priori can be summed up succinctly for people that do not already understand the concept. If you have no prior knowledge of the term, this article is very much unhelpful. I can assure you of this, as I
2836:
tests and so on don't require "JUSTIFICATIONS" written in capital letters. And anyway I have just added a simple link to a == See also == section. So I am kindly asking to Dr. Rubin (which happens to be also a wikipedia administrator and a doctor in mathematics) to try to stick to his areas of
2133:
There is worldwide philosophical consensus on apriori nature of knowledge of the world. If man is endowed with only one medium to experience the physical world (five senses)any evidence whatever it might be could only be known through human senses. In this case, the evidence relied upon by the
1969:
We also need an article that compares and relates the three distinctions, again with a set of good examples, that set being constructed with a view to allow easy comparison on any one of the three dimensions of aprioricity, analyticity and necessity. Such ease of comparison requires that each
1581:
Much of this outdated philosophical nonsense is dead and buried as a result of modern
Bayesian statistics and science; knowledge is just a configuration of the brain and experiences are just observed data. If the author includes a discussion on Bayesian statistics then the statement, "A priori
1277:
the "before experience" & "after experience" definition doesn't follow the whole gamut of the possible philosophic interpretation of thr word. Dictionary.com defines it fairly well under 'A Priori' as "from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation." and 'A
1243:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but din't Kant describe how synthetical a priori knowledge was possible in his 'Critique of Pure Reason'? He gave the example of any basic mathematical or geometrical equation. You mention Quine's argument against the analytic theory, but you don't mention Kant's own
814:
There is nothing in the article that cites to Aristotle's Organon, where much of the conceptual basis for a priori and a posteriori thinking was laid down. Certainly there is a semantic change over time regarding the a priori concept, moving from existance/essence to likelihood of event having
602:
In the Intuitive Distinction section, it seems clear that a priori does not have anything to do with being learned. It has to do with an epistemological notion of knowledge, not a psychological one of learning. Also, it's important to keep in mind that the thing that one is said to know (the
2183:
As written, these phrases are both nonsensical and grammatically incorrect. To salvage it with minimal modification, in the context of worldly knowledge gained in the presence or absence of experience, to render such phrases as "knowledge from prior/posterior to experience" as Kant presumably
3127:
Apparently I'm not making myself clear. I was saying that I oppose bigotry in regard marijuana, and that such bigotry clearly exists, not that all opposed to legalization of marijuana are bigots, or that all in favor of legalization of marijuana are sane or not bigots. To avoid any further
1128:
of experience." sentence doesn't exactly fit with the stuff about pure intuition. Kant's theory distinguishes (accurately or not) between concepts and intuitions. But, I'm having a hard time rewording the sentence so that it stays as simple as it is and yet accounts for the concept/intuition
952:
recently added a reference note/citation to Quine. I modified the format just a bit to accord with the majority of the other philosophy articles on Wikipeida: I added a "Notes" section, for the citations to go under. Preferably we can have all the references (the books and articles) in the
2483:
knowledge is what we generally know from experience, before looking at the particular case. "Most 20 year old bachelors eventually get married" or "... a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" would be what I am thinking of. "All bachelors are unmarried" is a
3413:
Identity, Identity, Edited by Chad Carmichael (Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis), About this topic,Summary Identity is sameness: the relation that holds between each thing and itself, and never holds between two things. Most philosophical issues about identity concern the
667:
There are certainly lots of ways to use "learn". This SEP entry seems to claim that learning involves acquiring beliefs. That seems intuitive and uncontroversial, although it's still not using them interchangeably. Anyhow, what I was worrying about before, though, was using "learn" and
2083:
To my mind, this does not support the notion expressed in the final sentence that summarises the section: "However, most philosophers at least seem to agree that while the various distinctions may overlap, the notions are clearly not identical: the a priori/a posteriori distinction is
580:
Lots of this entry needs cleaning up (and expansion--see below). The notion of the a priori and related issues is a huge area of philosophy and even affects metaphilosophical issues. Hopefully it can be made up to be a great article, since it's so central to the discipline. -
844:
It should be easy to figure out whether you are violating copyright. Just don't copy anything out of there without quoting it and providing a proper citation. Even if you paraphrase something from it or got an idea from it, you should cite it and the relevant section. -
1394:
I have never seen it hyphened, at least in philosophy. Sometimes professional philosophers write it together as one word, especially when used as a noun, e.g. "aprioricity". I think it's just an attempt to make it a term of art in philosophy, which, by now, it is. -
2236:
Grammatical or not, these terms have been standard philosophical terminology for centuries, and there is no question of Knowledge trying to amend the perceived mistakes of history. So I would suggest, if you want the article to include grammatical commentary, to find
1420:
It seems to me that it should follow the capitalization rules of any other pair of words, i.e. "A priori" at the beginning of a sentence, "A Priori" in a title, etc. It is, though, as someone said, a term of art in Philosophy, so maybe different rules could apply.
2045:
like "If George V reigned at all, then he reigned for some amount of time." would be a priori. The same section of the article mentions varying usage of the terms and if the Fodor citation is in fact being used to exemplify this more explanation would be helpful.
1518:
I understand (as stated in the article) that the meaning is up for debate, but this doesn't seem to me a good excuse for avoiding an attempt at defining it. Nearly every sentence in the opening pages of the article is apologetic rather than informative.
875:
Should some of the phenomenological philosophers such a Drs. Josef Siefert or Dietrich von Hildebrand be mentioned? Von Hildebrand has given one of the best definitions of a priori vis a vis a whole person experience in his book "What is Philosophy."
3300:-Change from: These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" which must follow it.
981:
and there it was, plain and simple. I put the quote in this entry, since it had some relevant info in it. I also tried to find references to some of the other things discussed in the article. Glad to see some positive collaboration going on. -
3017:
by law; all other substances are assigned to their appropriate category based on scientific information, except some "supplements" which are declared legal, even though they would be "Schedule I" or "Schedule II" if subject to regulation. ā
1287:
The second sentence of the entry is ā³A priori knowledge is independent from current experience (e.g., as part of a new study).ā³ What is ā³current experienceā³ suppose to mean? The whole point of a priori knowledge is that it is independent of
723:
The examples in the article are poor; they should clearly illustrate the definition. I am afraid your example of 'every living human has a brain' as a priori is not a good one, since it would appear to be an example of something discovered
1838:
reading the above questions/comments I feel something is missing. you could be a deaf mute living in a tribe and over time you could develop a notion of what a bachelor is conceptually based on your observations of behavior. Isn't
1685:
This sentence doesn't even make sense. It does not use "other words," it uses only an "other word." English is a contextual and descriptive language. One-word definitions are rarely enough to convey anything of meaningful value.
2325:
I would guess that the original author(s) intended the designator "George V" to be by definition an entity incapable of reigning indefinitely, i.e. a mortal man. The point could be better made using fewer assumptions, I agree.
1244:
original examples of synthetic a priori knowledge. I am, at best, a casual student of philosophy, so perhaps there is some flaw in Kant's work that invalidates it, but I'm confused as to why it wasn't included in the article.
757:
depending on the expereinces we have of light being bent by gravity as in apparent star shifts durin solar ecclipses. In any case the "black hole" is a bad example since the average reader would not know the definition of
153:
1689:
Granted, if a reader wanted to know more about tautologies, he/she could follow the link, however, a general definition with a link for further study is far more useful in providing understanding, context, and meaning.
3427:
I am confused by the differences in these sections. I would think the sources would be used in the text and should therefore be citations. If they were not used to write the text shouldn't they be under further reading?
2298:
By contrast, consider the proposition, "If George V reigned at all, then he reigned for a finite period of time." This is something that one knows a priori, because it expresses a statement that one can derive by reason
752:
it follows a fortiori that light canot escape a black hole. If on the hand black hole is defined in some otherway, invoving intenstity of gravitational filed or the like, light not escaping a black hole would be known
1057:
of experience, which is innate", or something like that. Better yet, I might do like you did with Leibniz and directly quote the man on the subject. But I'll start work on that when it's not so late where I am, maybe.
3552:
1816:
This example is incorrect, as pointed out in the first note of this section. It IS merely a definition. The defining element of "bachelor" is NOT that it refers to a male; it is that it refers to an UNMARRIED
1155:
Yeah, maybe "transcendental" should replace "conceptual". It is a special use of the term for Kant, but it would then be explained after it was used ("...knowledge is transcendental, in that it is based on the
2961:
I had a quick look and I feel the addition makes some sense -even if I am not leaning strongly on either side. Also, I am Italian, and as such I can confirm the source translation is indeed correct. However
1292:
experience, not only current experience. See IEP definition of a priori . If a proposition is dependent on future experience is it then a priori knowledge? I would say it is neither a priori nor knowledge.
2059:
Seconded. I'm sure there are some rulers in history who have not held power for even a full day, and even if there were no real-world examples, the idea certainly isn't inconceivable. I will edit this.
2343:
I agree with 173.230.96.116. What, too, if George V is still reigning? Surely it would better say, "If George V reigned at all, and if his reign has ended, then he reigned for a finite period of time"?
647:
wrong) that "learning" is synonymous (on some level) with "acquiring knowledge." I'll leave it the way you put it, though, since I'm not altogether familiar with acadamic usage of the word "learning."
1651:
article. See there for more examples. I am not saying I know better, but I heard some good arguments. I know if you think about language being a requisite, you must eliminate a lot in the article.
477:
3542:
2554:(Undid revision 528456245 by Arthur Rubin (talk). A search using "a priori categories" & "archetypes" keywords returns an average of 17.400 results. So I guess there are "somehow"correlated.)
2392:
3053:. So I guess I have all reasons to think that I am not a "bigot" (thanks for the "compliments"). But, obviously, if anyone thinks marijuana legalisation should be pursued anyone should have the
531:
entry). I hope no one minds. I checked the talk pages and people seemed to want to disambiguate the philosophical use of the term "a priori" from the non-philosophical uses. Furthermore, the
3557:
1599:
I'm confused about this sentence: "The American philosopher Saul Kripke (1972), for example, provided strong arguments against this position." What position, exactly, is being referred to?
1356:
It is pronounced the second way in the best English, even by classicists like me. Similarly with alumni, whereas alumnae would end in -ee. Initial a in alumni is short in Latin, by the way.
204:
3135:
won't do it without Maurice's consent. If my previous comment of 10:11, 6 January 2013 is to be hatted, so should "Thirdly", above, but I'm not going to do that without consensus. ā
1906:
should have its own article, despite Kant's rejection of it. Such an article should of course include Kant's (and others') justification for rejecting it, but there are others, (e.g.,
3128:
escalation of this issue, I decline comment as to whether your example supports your thesis. Neither the argument nor any refutation has any place on Knowledge, even on talk pages.
2925:
of the source, it verifies that "a priori categories" is relevant to (Jungian archetypes), not necessarily the reverse. I still lean against inclusion, but you have established a
734:
A priori knowledge is knowledge that rests on a priori justification. A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience.
147:
1322:
Either way, I think. I have heard professionals pronounce it each way pretty much 50/50. I don't think there's a way to tell how it is "truly" pronounced, since it is Latin. -
2099:
If, indeed, an a priori synthetic proposition is one that notices "certain facts about the world", it is one that derives its knowledge not solely from language, but also from
1850:
2137:
Humans first believe in something and then try to confirm its acceptability with their peers. Scientific method is one of the many ways humans try to confirm their beliefs.
603:
proposition) must be knowledge. That's why I put the qualification on there that "George V reigned from 1910-1936" must be assumed to be knowledge; it may not even be true.
1719:
ideas are derived from impressions. This would support my belief that Hume thinks that all knowledge is a posteriori. Indeed, the article on this piece describes him as an
1582:
knowledge or justification is independent of experience" will have to be changed to say that a priori knowledge is the sum of knowledge over all possible given experiences.
44:
1489:
Is there any objection to spell the term 'a-priori' to avoid confusion with the English article 'a', especially in situation where the term is broken into two lines? --
1970:
comparable pair discusses similar things in similar ways, e.g. "All apples are sweet." Perhaps a tabular presentation of such examples would help clarify matters.
3487:
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
1783:
example? That all bachelors are unmarried is simply by definition. It is a matter of semantics not of knowledge. Arguably our knowing that all bachelors are unmarred
295:
on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
3577:
3241:
I am not sure I understand why a priori points here and a posteriori points to A priori and a posteriori. Shouldn't they both point to A priori and a posteriori?
1843:
the definition of what a bachelor is in the statement "all bachelors are unmarried", the relationship between the references, not the fact that these are words?
565:
hasn't provided any discussion here regarding his suggestion, I'm just going to take off the merge banner. But, by all means, discuss it here if you'd like. --
599:
this sense is not normally limited by "sensory input" or "introspective consciousness". I think that, in the intro, it should be fairly general and unspecified.
369:
243:
1693:
In other words, this sentence does not explain why a priori statements, which are true, are tautologies, and why a priori statements which are false, are not.
1214:
Sounds good. I'll put the changes in the article. I'll move them from here to there. (So, the text will no longer be on this talk page, taking up space.) --
3264:
Under "History", the last sentence under "Immanuel Kant" doesn't really make sense. At the very least it's awkwardly stated and difficult to read - see below
3567:
322:
551:
has suggested some sort of merger. I'm not sure exactly what he wants merged and why. It would be nice if Ajo Mama would clarify here on the talk page. -
629:, under the section on punctuation. I know that the normal U.S. English style is to do it the other way, but the U.K. English style makes much more sense
332:
1990:
The following material has been pasted into a number of articles with only tenuous connection to the topic; I have reverted and retain the content here:
79:
1709:
I take issue with the presentation of Hume's beliefs. From my reading, I understand Hume to believe that all knowledge is a posteriori. The section in
3582:
3537:
1711:
1008:(supposedly) necessarily true. But, maybe it's a matter of what kind of necessity is being talked aboutālogical (in which case, yeah, even synthetic
2679:
2612:
834:
How can I incorporate the info on apriority that I've located in the S.E.P. and the I.E.P. without violating copyright? HAVE I violated copyright?
3607:
3592:
3547:
2973:
2838:
467:
2221:
reflect his ignorance of mathematics. He was, in truth, a pretty shabby philosopher. Aristotle did much more with much less to use as a basis. --
3572:
3061:
the rest of the world for being a "bigot". Last but not least I am starting to believe that "someone" is using wikipedia as means of political
2138:
930:
297:
85:
3562:
3009:
unreasonable. There may be reasons to oppose full legalization of cannabis; however, it is clear from a study of the (US) law that it was
2311:
2256:
2222:
3005:
Unfortunately, I must defend myself against charges that I accuse others of bigotry without evidence, because Maurice's accusation is not
2610:
e, quindi, con schemi mentali che sono presenti in tutti gli uomini e ne condizionano il sapere e la stessa comprensione del mondo. (...)
880:
2446:
There are many points of view on these two types of assertion, and their relationship is one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy.
2172:
are rendered in the dative case. However, this preposition takes only the ablative case, which would require the words to be rendered as
890:
I think some facts need to be checked. Quine accepts that there is a priori knowledge? He demolished the analytic/synthetic distinction!
3179:
Fine: I really appreciate that you are starting to decline comments in order to avoid any further escalations of the issue. I agree in "
2491:
2061:
1824:
1803:
906:
168:
3597:
2675:
and, therefore, with thought patterns that are present in all people and influence the knowledge and understanding of the world (...)
2396:
2368:
1747:
The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used in philosophy to distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning, respectively.
1728:
135:
2584:
of all I would like to point out that the "occurring" is not on "one same page" (sic!) but on 16,300 webpages (sorry not 17,400. (
2484:
definition, isn't it? It doesn't tell us anything about the real world except what we call unmarried men, when we speak English.
2019:, one develop the similar based movement into a deconstruction of the elements, follows this powerful movement of 1970s and 1980s.
703:
Might more mundane and less debatable examples serve the article better for the purposes of clarity? For example, something like:
2567:
Reverted good faith edits by Maurice Carbonaro (talk): Please JUSTIFY the inclusion. Occuring on the same web page is not enough.
443:
287:
238:
3602:
3587:
3532:
3014:
1621:"... some philosophers have considered the relationship between aprioricity, analyticity, and necessity to be extremely close."
1481:
is doing over the article? I can't seem to spot what's causing it in the article source. ink_13 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
99:
30:
1854:
1020:
truths are still supposed to be necessary). Here's my suggestion for rewriting it: "In this way, Kant considered all analytic
1899:
1515:
stumbled across the page without knowing of this term. In the end, I checked other resources for a definition of the terms.
104:
20:
539:
entries were both slim and the two are best presented together. There wasn't much talk going on those talk pages either. -
129:
2540:āSee also: remove *Jungian archetypes; possibly examples of "a priori" and/or "a posteriori", but not really that related)
2303:
This is not true: one would need to consult experience to know that it is impossible for a person to reign forever, or to
1779:
The opening paragraph gives "all bachelors are unmarried" as an example of a priori. Is this a good example? Is it even a
74:
213:
3206:
3108:
3086:
2967:
2882:
434:
411:
385:
247:
125:
65:
2114:"most philosophers ... seem to agree" also worry me. Why pretend there is a consensus when there so clearly isn't?
1945:
I also disagree. What we need to provide are clear articles, with good examples, on each of the three distinctions:
3449:
2119:
2050:
1975:
1764:
1631:
1566:
740:
Kant suggested any true mathematical statement. You DO have to be careful with examples. It could be argued that
3066:
2142:
626:
175:
24:
1715:
preceding the one mentioned that delineates "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact" explains his belief that
934:
2315:
2260:
2226:
2495:
902:
2419:
2372:
2065:
1888:
1828:
1807:
1732:
1410:
Can you use "a priori" capitalized? I've changed put up the lowercase template to show that it shouldn't. --
1298:
713:
109:
3473:
More than one instance of "A priori and a posteriori" in the "External links" will likely prove redundancy.
2750:. Talking about psychiatry I wonder if the very same user that has published on his user page the userbox
2657:
2602:
1883:
3433:
3188:
3171:
3139:
3090:
3050:
3022:
2963:
2933:
2864:
2529:
1520:
1411:
2415:
2407:
2115:
2046:
1971:
1760:
1627:
1562:
1549:
898:
781:
The article now has a lot of section, but very little in each. Hopefully people can expand the section
219:
2016:
1873:
1313:
1294:
1249:
881:
http://www.iap.li/oldversion/site/research/Back_to_Things_Themeselves/Back_to_Things_In_Themeselves.pdf
709:
141:
2980:-if anything he/she's bossing around Arthur Rubin by asking him to "stick to his areas of expertise".
1490:
2794:
2487:
2388:
2364:
1846:
1820:
1587:
1422:
1337:
926:
894:
738:
Standard examples of propositions known a priori include: a bachelor is an unmarried male; 2 + 3 = 5;
672:" interchangebly. Belief is, presumably, only part of knowledge. When you learn something, such as
3279:
3271:, this most famous of Kant's deductions has made the successful attempt in the case for the fact of
2217:
This misuse of Latin reflects Kant's ignorance of the language, just as most of the contents of his
1189:
of all possible experience..."? If you don't want that, then I say: just go with what you suggested.
816:
190:
3283:
3046:
2821:
2327:
2275:
2242:
2030:
1604:
1357:
820:
562:
548:
528:
161:
55:
1652:
1245:
442:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
3491:
3482:
3275:, what constitutes subjectivity and what relation it holds with objectivity and the empirical."
3246:
3160:
3156:
3070:
2992:
2517:
1878:
1788:
1723:. I grant that I haven't been reading Hume for long, but it seems to me there's a contradiction.
1561:
Me too! Why don't you make the connection, and add a mention of its use in Bayesian statistics?
1534:
1446:
1385:
1361:
938:
676:, you may acquire a belief, but you surely don't acquire knowledge, namely because it's false. -
70:
3183:" but I would wait first in order to make the "incidents happened between us" more readable for
2917:
argument, not to my substantive arguments. As this is the first time you've added a source for
2361:
Yes! We need experience (a posteriori) to know that men are mortal. It is not known a priori.
2307:
reigned forever. These facts cannot be deduced from reason independent of knowledge of reality.
2000:
1787:
come from experience...our experience of learning that the word "bachelor" means "unmarried". --
884:
879:
Siefert gives a wonderful example of using a priori in his work "Back to Things in Themselves."
2921:
of your (on the surface, implausible) edits, I'll have to consider the merits of your argument.
2701:
2634:
3429:
3376:
3358:
3168:
3136:
3131:
Furthermore, it would probably be a good idea to "hat" the previous comment and this one; but
3054:
3019:
2930:
2525:
2438:
1934:
1907:
1724:
1666:
apriori needs to be clearly delineated as there will be people searching for it specifically.
1087:
Hey, I didn't see this until late. Gotta sleep. I'll definitely take a look soon though. --
766:
625:
I changed the style back to having the punctuation outside of quotation marks as it is in the
279:
51:
2689:
2622:
2241:
such as academic journals that cover the matter and incorporating those as references. Best,
622:. So, that's why I put in the qualification that it's only that way if the identity is true.
3513:
3457:
2825:
1964:
And shouldn't each article discuss the relation between the distinction it makes, and truth?
1792:
1696:
1461:
2779:"This user is pro-cannabis, and opposes bigotry and oppression suffered by cannabis users."
3501:
2705:
2638:
2085:
2012:
1667:
1647:
only mastered through experience. I have added a piece about posteriori and priori in the
1583:
1500:
1190:
1139:
1078:
1059:
965:
949:
859:
835:
801:
690:
658:
648:
591:
505:
2854:
in order to see if we can cool down our relationship that, IMHO, is starting to heat up.
2382:
Huh. No philosopher am I, but my thought on reading the George example was that this is
1336:
permutations of those syllables, are probably fine outside of an ancient Latin context.
3187:. Anyway there are less invasive actions than undoing ... like placing "" templates...
3043:
2903:
2829:
2809:
2349:
2026:
2008:
1600:
923:
terms have later been used in a Latin translation of the Elements (or possibly both).
426:
405:
3517:
3461:
3437:
3380:
3362:
3287:
3250:
3220:
3174:
3142:
3122:
3025:
2994:
2936:
2896:
2499:
2442:
2423:
2400:
2376:
2353:
2334:
2319:
2282:
2264:
2249:
2230:
2146:
2123:
2069:
2054:
2034:
1979:
1938:
1923:
1858:
1832:
1811:
1796:
1768:
1736:
1699:
1670:
1655:
1635:
1608:
1591:
1570:
1552:
1537:
1523:
1503:
1493:
1464:
1425:
1414:
1399:
1388:
1365:
1340:
1326:
1316:
1302:
1282:
1253:
1218:
1193:
1164:
1142:
1103:
1091:
1081:
1062:
986:
968:
957:
910:
862:
849:
838:
824:
804:
789:
770:
717:
693:
680:
661:
657:
classify Pluto as a planet)." Right, wrong, colloquial,Ā ??? use of the word "learns"?
651:
641:
585:
569:
555:
543:
508:
377:
361:
3526:
3334:
3242:
3184:
3074:
2981:
2977:
2907:
2411:
1919:
1545:
1530:
1279:
687:
3372:
3354:
3350:
3272:
3180:
3082:
3078:
3039:
3035:
2952:
2851:
2782:
2759:
2747:
2595:
I can also provide a "JUSTIFICATION" (pardon me, a "Reference") like the following:
2434:
2433:
The following in the lede strikesme as inappropriate in the lede and badly phrased:
2271:
2238:
2200:. Or even more correctly, one would use entirely different words: the prepositions
2111:
2093:
1930:
762:
536:
524:
2793:
could be seen as an insult). There could be several reasons for being against the
3013:
based on any rational information; "marijuana" is the only substance declared a "
2671:(...) Among the sources of inspiration then there is also Immanuel Kant with his
3509:
3453:
3315:
2004:
1438:). We do not typically capitalize "cheese" either. Yet the Knowledge article on
1435:
1396:
1323:
1215:
1161:
1100:
1088:
983:
954:
846:
786:
677:
638:
582:
566:
552:
540:
2946:
3062:
2929:
between the concepts. I'll tag the addition, rather than reverting again. ā
2914:
2813:
2089:
1959:
Further, each example needs to emphasise the distinction made in that article.
1720:
292:
269:
3049:
in favour of cannabis legalisation ended up hitting mainstream media for the
2801:
returns 52,300 results. Should I provide a "JUSTIFICATION" for this as well?
729:
686:
Something to think about re: my use of the word "learning" and epistemology:
3346:
3304:
2345:
1648:
1499:
The italics should help avoid confusion. I doubt using a hyphen is proper. ā
1012:
truths aren't necessary), or, uh, I've said "cognitive", but "metaphysical"
606:
Similarly, in the section on Kripke, it is important to note that "Water = H
2842:
2310:
People who are babysitting this article, get your shit together. Please. --
1618:, I'd say it referred to the first claim of the preceding paragraph, viz.:
2902:
There has been some discussion, here and in the real world, as to whether
2837:
expertise while editing (and undoing) in wikipedia instead of stalking my
2514:
In the last days I have added in the == See also == section a link to the
610:
O" may not be true. What Kripke really argued was that what is necessary
3338:
3319:
3006:
2606:(...) Tra le fonti di ispirazione c'ĆØ poi anche Immanuel Kant con le sue
2510:
Please JUSTIFY the inclusion. Occuring on the same web page is not enough
1996:
1915:
532:
520:
2274:
under which we are operating, do you propose to do about it? Sincerely,
1384:
ever hyphenated? It seems like it should be, but I almost never see it.
3342:
3308:
3031:
2788:
964:
pre-Kantian examples of a distinction between analysis and synthesis."
291:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
2799:
a serch that uses the keywords "paranoid schizophrenia" and "cannabis"
3326:
1439:
500:
phrase "rule-governed" is describing "place" and reads a bit better.
263:
232:
1077:
So, how's it look? Definitely not perfect. But, hopefully, better.
3312:
2785:
to all those that don't agree with full legalisation of cannabis (
2103:(in this case, by "facts", however ascertained) - in other words,
1681:
In other words, statements that are a priori true are tautologies.
439:
3353:
more comprehensive update; Please go for the consensus. thanks...
2770:, and opposes bigotry and oppression suffered by cannabis users.
977:
That made me curious too. So, I searched the online text of the
3323:
3261:
I haven't incorrectly changed the meaning of it in the process.
2857:
2833:
2696:, page - VIII -, Introduction to the reader's digest edition of
2629:, page - VIII -, Introduction to the reader's digest edition of
1138:
I also edited the suggested revision otherwise in a few places.
3400:
3371:
Finished the changes and links; go for the consensus, thanks...
3159:, for which I now see adequate documentation, I don't see that
2188:
that would be rendered in the dative if anything would be, not
728:, by experience (i.e. the opening of skulls). Have a look at
3042:
acceptable. There has been at least one case in which another
2860:
and with all due respect to everyone... thanks for reading me.
2654:
2599:
184:
15:
2698:"The archetypes and the collective subconscious by C.G. Jung"
1626:
However, it's not clear to me how to effect an improvement.
1544:
Me too. Also it doesn't even mention its scientific use (see
3452:
since 2014 and echoed again in 2022. Reassess article. --
1024:
propositions to be necessary propositions and all synthetic
376:
360:
3553:
Knowledge level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
2850:
Last but not least I have posted this talk page comment in
1727:
03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Absolutely endorse the above
1041:
Additionally, I'm thinking of changing "according to which
800:
for permission first, or whatever, when it comes to that).
2453:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
3151:
Getting back to the substance of the dispute. Even if "
3030:
Unfortunately, I must defend myself of being accused of
3038:) without evidence, because Arthur's accusation is not
2566:
2553:
2539:
1434:"Philosophy" is not capitalized either (as it is not a
2414:, and therefore, the sentence may not be pure reason.
2129:
Evidence (scientific empiricism) and Apriori Knowledge
2075:
Analyticity and necessity - faulty concluding sentence
1477:
Can someone figure out what a large copy of Courbet's
160:
2631:"Gli archetipi e l'inconscio collettivo di C.G. Jung"
1116:
knowledge is conceptual, in that it is based on the
1073:
Suggested revision of the second half of the article
438:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
3543:
Knowledge vital articles in Philosophy and religion
1160:of all possible experience..."). Watcha think? --
1124:knowledge is empirical, in that it is based on the
633:
it's the way that Wikipedian's want it per the MOS.
343:
3322:premise; from what must follow sense observation-
2627:"L'inconscio collettivo di Carl Gustav Jung, oggi"
1914:knowledge not only exists, but is even important.
1869:IMO, there needs to be four seperate articles for
688:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/learning-formal/
3558:C-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
3303:-Change to: These terms are used with respect to
2270:encyclopaedia's treatment of it: what, given the
2910:. But, that's only relevant to the "merits" of
2746:Dr. Vittorino Andreoli happens to be an italian
523:entry (at least the philosophical part) and the
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1312:Is it pronounced: ah-pree-ori, or ay-pry-oriy?
810:More stuff about philosophy - basics/background
594:made, only because they seem pretty important:
2816:are not exact sciences like mathematics where
2092:, and the necessary/contingent distinction is
795:More stuff about empirical knowledge, citation
3267:"In consideration of a possible logic of the
3237:a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge
3065:. Which, sooner or later, could bring to the
2406:It must be noted that the example contains a
1529:I agree. The article needs to be more clear.
1185:knowledge is transcendental, or based on the
174:
8:
783:and provide sources for claims, quotes, etc.
1676:Statements that are a priori true are WHAT?
1016:be more accurate (in which case, synthetic
2694:"Carl Jung collective subconscious, today"
2458:The following discussion has been closed.
2449:
2386:
2293:Article contains examples which are wrong.
1844:
924:
730:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/
400:
340:
227:
3311:-conclusions; from what must come before
2198:Scientia a priore/posteriore experientiae
1948:aprioricity --- a priori vs. a posteriori
1712:An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
858:Okay. That isn't liable to be difficult.
2088:, the analytic/synthetic distinction is
1049:of experience" into "according to which
3393:
2152:These terms are grammatically incorrect
1053:knowledge is based on the structure or
1045:knowledge is based on the structure or
402:
229:
188:
3505:
3495:
3486:
2480:knowledge with definitions? I thought
2393:2602:306:CF99:2080:BC52:E72A:3086:3E12
2213:, knowledge <having been known: -->
2011:, which almost opposite discipline of
1954:necessity --- necessary vs. contingent
1951:analyticity --- analytic vs. synthetic
1751:Eh?--Philogo 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
590:I recently reverted some changes that
301:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
3578:High-importance epistemology articles
3087:User_talk:Maurice_Carbonaro#Wikilinks
3073:. We may continue this discussion in
2841:and giving me the feeling that he is
1112:Not bad, but the "According to Kant,
742:light cannot excape from a black hole
7:
1028:propositions to be contingent ones."
519:I created this article to merge the
432:This article is within the scope of
285:This article is within the scope of
3568:High-importance Philosophy articles
2710:'Stiftung der Werke von C.G. Jung'
2643:'Stiftung der Werke von C.G. Jung'
2524:This edit has been undone twice by
748:: if a black hole is by definition
218:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
2214:prior to/posterior to experience.
2101:a theory of how we can know things
1894:And that includes NOT redirecting
1452:template.Ā :) Nor should this one.
1120:of all possible experience, while
750:that from which nothing can escape
14:
3443:Article issues and classification
3296:Change 2nd sentence 2nd paragraph
3077:. But I will just wait first for
3057:to say and/or write that without
2700:, in Opere, Vol. IX, 1980, 1997,
2633:, in Opere, Vol. IX, 1980, 1997,
2164:) usually means "from", and both
1986:Retained Art/Architecture Content
674:there are 550 continents on Earth
3583:Epistemology task force articles
3538:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
2945:
2758:
2753:
425:
404:
307:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
272:
262:
231:
198:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
2976:) is strongly advised to avoid
1181:How about, "According to Kant,
472:This article has been rated as
327:This article has been rated as
310:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
3608:High-importance Latin articles
3593:High-importance logic articles
3548:C-Class level-4 vital articles
3307:(epistemology) to distinguish
2532:) with the following comments:
2401:14:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
1900:Analytic-synthetic distinction
1851:2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:1D29
1700:11:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1219:08:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
3573:C-Class epistemology articles
3518:15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
3462:15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
3411:PhilPapers, Metaphysics : -->
2795:full legalisation of cannabis
2702:Bollati Boringhieri Publisher
1865:Four seperate articles needed
1859:07:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
1797:20:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
1671:11:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1194:01:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
1165:04:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
1143:22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
939:12:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
771:20:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
718:17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
446:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
3506:Minimize the number of links
3438:20:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
3401:https://iep.utm.edu/apriori/
3288:12:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
3251:19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
2424:17:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
2377:21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
2335:20:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
2320:19:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
2283:20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
2265:19:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
2250:19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
2231:19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
2147:12:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1759:problem has been fixed!Ā ;-)
1609:00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
1553:09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
1426:08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
1415:19:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
1341:08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
1303:18:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
911:03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
620:O, then it is so necessarily
3563:C-Class Philosophy articles
3497:fansite may be appropriate.
3221:12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
3175:10:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
3143:09:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
3123:09:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
3069:. Knowledge talk pages are
3026:10:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
2995:15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2937:13:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2897:09:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
2635:Bollati Boringhieri Editore
2586:Please check for yourselves
2500:00:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
2443:15:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
2124:19:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1980:19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1769:19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1636:19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1571:19:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1400:04:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
1327:04:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
1283:21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
1254:01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
1104:20:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1092:07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1082:07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1063:10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
987:07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
969:00:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
958:23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
863:21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
850:07:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
839:04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
825:21:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
805:02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
790:07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
746:all bachelors all are male
694:04:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
681:23:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
662:04:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
652:19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
642:19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
586:07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
570:22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
556:23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
544:07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
452:Knowledge:WikiProject Latin
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
3624:
3423:Sources and future reading
3381:14:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
3363:02:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2477:Isn't this page confusing
2156:In Latin, the preposition
2070:19:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
1737:08:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
1656:21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
1592:10:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1504:15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1494:11:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1317:14:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
918:Terms in Euclid's Elements
887:00:01, Oct 01, 2005 (EDT)
455:Template:WikiProject Latin
333:project's importance scale
3598:Logic task force articles
3067:Politicization of science
2839:recent contributions page
2684:
2617:
2354:05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
2055:05:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
2035:06:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
1939:23:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
1924:13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
1833:19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
1812:22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1538:14:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
1465:04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
627:Knowledge Manual of Style
471:
420:
384:
368:
339:
326:
257:
226:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
25:A priori and a posteriori
3333:That Kant was proposing
2461:Please do not modify it.
2184:intended, it's actually
1389:13:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
1366:16:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
917:
614:is the proposition that
509:03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3448:Article has failed the
3047:wikipedia administrator
2783:making personal attacks
2543:11:56, 17 December 2012
2219:Critique of Pure Reason
2210:Scientia <scita: -->
1524:07:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
744:is known a priori like
344:Associated task forces:
3603:C-Class Latin articles
3588:C-Class logic articles
3533:C-Class vital articles
3477:the content guideline.
3051:2010 Pentagon shooting
2822:rigorous demonstration
2818:every single statement
2704:, translated from the
2637:, translated from the
2272:particular limitations
2211:ante/post experientiam
1889:synthetic a posteriori
381:
365:
288:WikiProject Philosophy
75:avoid personal attacks
2953:third opinion request
2673:Ā«a priori categoriesĀ»
2570:16:16, 3 January 2013
2558:13:14, 3 January 2013
1912:analytic a posteriori
1904:analytic a posteriori
1884:analytic a posteriori
380:
364:
205:level-4 vital article
100:Neutral point of view
2608:Ā«categorie a prioriĀ»
2040:Jerry Fodor Citation
1614:Reading between the
1473:What a big painting!
1442:doesn't include the
527:entry (that is, the
105:No original research
2482:a priori</a: -->
2479:a priori</a: -->
529:empirical knowledge
313:Philosophy articles
3161:Jungian archetypes
3157:Jungian archetypes
2690:Vittorino Andreoli
2623:Vittorino Andreoli
2518:Jungian archetypes
1910:), who argue that
1896:synthetic a priori
1879:synthetic a priori
1479:L'Origine du Monde
382:
366:
298:general discussion
214:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
3341:of living in the
3256:awkward sentence?
3234:
3233:
3155:" is relevant to
3055:freedom of speech
3000:
2999:
2964:MauriceĀ Carbonaro
2862:Yours faithfully.
2826:Free associations
2797:. For instance a
2774:
2773:
2720:
2719:
2716:
2713:
2712:, Zűrich, Schweiz
2664:
2653:
2652:
2649:
2646:
2645:, Zűrich, Schweiz
2571:
2559:
2544:
2490:comment added by
2403:
2391:comment added by
2367:comment added by
2017:De-Constructivism
1908:Stephen Palmquist
1874:analytic a priori
1861:
1849:comment added by
1823:comment added by
1775:bachelors example
1661:Synthetic Apriori
941:
929:comment added by
914:
897:comment added by
504:Agreed; thanks. ā
492:
491:
488:
487:
484:
483:
435:WikiProject Latin
399:
398:
395:
394:
391:
390:
280:Philosophy portal
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
3615:
3450:B-class criteria
3415:
3409:
3403:
3398:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3204:
3203:
3202:
3163:is relevant to "
3120:
3119:
3118:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3081:about your past
2990:
2984:
2978:personal attacks
2949:
2942:
2941:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2762:
2754:
2715:
2714:
2687:
2663:
2655:
2648:
2647:
2620:
2600:
2569:
2557:
2542:
2502:
2463:
2450:
2379:
2332:
2331:
2280:
2279:
2255:time, surely. --
2247:
2246:
2239:reliable sources
2047:DearthOfMateriel
2003:(archetype) and
1835:
1742:Opening sentence
1642:two plus two = 4
1451:
1445:
913:
891:
830:Copyright issues
478:importance scale
460:
459:
456:
453:
450:
429:
422:
421:
416:
408:
401:
351:
341:
315:
314:
311:
308:
305:
282:
277:
276:
275:
266:
259:
258:
253:
250:
235:
228:
211:
202:
201:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
3623:
3622:
3618:
3617:
3616:
3614:
3613:
3612:
3523:
3522:
3470:
3445:
3425:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3410:
3406:
3399:
3395:
3298:
3258:
3239:
3214:
3213:
3208:
3207:
3198:
3197:
3190:
3189:
3116:
3115:
3110:
3109:
3100:
3099:
3092:
3091:
3036:personal attack
3015:Schedule I drug
2988:
2987:
2982:
2890:
2889:
2884:
2883:
2874:
2873:
2866:
2865:
2830:Rorschach tests
2706:german language
2685:
2639:german language
2618:
2512:
2485:
2475:
2459:
2431:
2362:
2329:
2328:
2295:
2277:
2276:
2244:
2243:
2154:
2139:124.124.230.149
2131:
2105:an epistemology
2086:epistemological
2077:
2042:
2013:Neo-Rationalism
1988:
1867:
1818:
1777:
1755:Well, at least
1744:
1707:
1678:
1663:
1644:
1521:198.144.206.231
1512:
1487:
1475:
1449:
1443:
1408:
1386:āBen FrantzDale
1378:
1310:
1275:
1075:
947:
931:130.239.110.190
920:
892:
873:
832:
812:
797:
779:
619:
609:
578:
517:
497:
474:High-importance
457:
454:
451:
448:
447:
415:Highāimportance
414:
349:
329:High-importance
312:
309:
306:
303:
302:
278:
273:
271:
252:Highāimportance
251:
241:
212:on Knowledge's
209:
199:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
3621:
3619:
3611:
3610:
3605:
3600:
3595:
3590:
3585:
3580:
3575:
3570:
3565:
3560:
3555:
3550:
3545:
3540:
3535:
3525:
3524:
3521:
3520:
3499:
3489:
3479:
3478:
3474:
3469:
3468:External links
3466:
3465:
3464:
3444:
3441:
3424:
3421:
3417:
3416:
3404:
3392:
3391:
3387:
3386:
3385:
3384:
3383:
3366:
3365:
3297:
3294:
3292:
3257:
3254:
3238:
3235:
3232:
3231:
3228:
3227:
3226:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3209:
3191:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3145:
3129:
3111:
3093:
2998:
2997:
2985:
2958:
2957:
2940:
2939:
2922:
2904:psychoanalysis
2885:
2867:
2863:
2861:
2855:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2810:psychoanalysis
2775:
2772:
2771:
2764:
2752:
2751:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2718:
2717:
2682:
2681:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2667:
2666:
2659:
2651:
2650:
2615:
2614:
2611:
2604:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2590:
2589:
2577:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2556:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2533:
2523:
2511:
2508:
2474:
2471:
2469:
2465:
2464:
2455:
2454:
2430:
2427:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2338:
2337:
2312:173.230.96.116
2294:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2257:173.230.96.116
2223:173.230.96.116
2153:
2150:
2130:
2127:
2076:
2073:
2041:
2038:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2009:Post-Modernism
1987:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1966:
1965:
1961:
1960:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1952:
1949:
1942:
1941:
1892:
1891:
1886:
1881:
1876:
1866:
1863:
1776:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1743:
1740:
1706:
1703:
1677:
1674:
1662:
1659:
1643:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1556:
1555:
1541:
1540:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1486:
1483:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1429:
1428:
1423:Super Aardvark
1412:165.230.46.142
1407:
1406:Capitalization
1404:
1403:
1402:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1348:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1338:Super Aardvark
1330:
1329:
1309:
1306:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1107:
1106:
1095:
1094:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1004:truths, which
1000:are synthetic
992:
991:
990:
989:
972:
971:
946:
943:
919:
916:
872:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
853:
852:
831:
828:
811:
808:
796:
793:
778:
775:
774:
773:
698:
684:
683:
635:
634:
623:
617:
607:
604:
600:
577:
574:
573:
572:
516:
513:
512:
511:
496:
493:
490:
489:
486:
485:
482:
481:
470:
464:
463:
461:
458:Latin articles
444:the discussion
430:
418:
417:
409:
397:
396:
393:
392:
389:
388:
383:
373:
372:
367:
357:
356:
354:
352:
346:
345:
337:
336:
325:
319:
318:
316:
284:
283:
267:
255:
254:
236:
224:
223:
217:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3620:
3609:
3606:
3604:
3601:
3599:
3596:
3594:
3591:
3589:
3586:
3584:
3581:
3579:
3576:
3574:
3571:
3569:
3566:
3564:
3561:
3559:
3556:
3554:
3551:
3549:
3546:
3544:
3541:
3539:
3536:
3534:
3531:
3530:
3528:
3519:
3515:
3511:
3507:
3503:
3500:
3498:
3493:
3490:
3488:
3484:
3481:
3480:
3475:
3472:
3471:
3467:
3463:
3459:
3455:
3451:
3447:
3446:
3442:
3440:
3439:
3435:
3431:
3422:
3412:Objects : -->
3408:
3405:
3402:
3397:
3394:
3390:
3382:
3378:
3374:
3370:
3369:
3368:
3367:
3364:
3360:
3356:
3352:
3348:
3344:
3340:
3336:
3335:understanding
3332:
3331:
3330:
3328:
3325:
3321:
3317:
3314:
3310:
3306:
3301:
3295:
3293:
3290:
3289:
3285:
3281:
3276:
3274:
3270:
3265:
3262:
3255:
3253:
3252:
3248:
3244:
3236:
3230:
3229:
3222:
3219:
3212:
3205:
3201:
3196:
3195:
3186:
3182:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3173:
3170:
3166:
3162:
3158:
3154:
3150:
3144:
3141:
3138:
3134:
3130:
3126:
3125:
3124:
3121:
3114:
3107:
3103:
3098:
3097:
3088:
3085:performed in
3084:
3080:
3076:
3072:
3068:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3052:
3048:
3045:
3041:
3037:
3034:(= blatantly
3033:
3029:
3028:
3027:
3024:
3021:
3016:
3012:
3008:
3004:
3003:
3002:
3001:
2996:
2993:
2991:
2979:
2975:
2972:
2969:
2965:
2960:
2959:
2955:
2954:
2948:
2944:
2943:
2938:
2935:
2932:
2928:
2923:
2920:
2916:
2913:
2909:
2908:pseudoscience
2905:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2895:
2888:
2881:
2877:
2872:
2871:
2859:
2853:
2844:
2840:
2835:
2831:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2800:
2796:
2792:
2790:
2784:
2780:
2769:
2766:This user is
2765:
2763:
2761:
2756:
2755:
2749:
2745:
2742:
2741:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2695:
2691:
2683:
2674:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2665:
2662:
2660:
2656:
2644:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2616:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2594:
2591:
2587:
2583:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2568:
2565:
2564:
2555:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2541:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2531:
2527:
2521:
2519:
2509:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2492:121.222.50.99
2489:
2473:By Definition
2472:
2470:
2467:
2466:
2462:
2457:
2456:
2452:
2451:
2448:
2447:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2428:
2426:
2425:
2421:
2417:
2416:Heavyarms2025
2413:
2412:King George V
2409:
2404:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2385:
2380:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2336:
2333:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2308:
2306:
2301:
2300:
2292:
2284:
2281:
2273:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2248:
2240:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2215:
2212:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2181:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2151:
2149:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2135:
2128:
2126:
2125:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2108:
2106:
2102:
2097:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2081:
2074:
2072:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2062:96.10.232.194
2057:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2039:
2037:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1968:
1967:
1963:
1962:
1958:
1953:
1950:
1947:
1946:
1944:
1943:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1890:
1887:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1877:
1875:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1864:
1862:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1842:
1836:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1825:64.251.40.254
1822:
1814:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1804:72.177.83.171
1799:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1749:
1748:
1741:
1739:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1713:
1704:
1702:
1701:
1698:
1694:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1675:
1673:
1672:
1669:
1660:
1658:
1657:
1654:
1650:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1620:
1619:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1554:
1551:
1550:155.198.65.29
1547:
1546:Bayes theorem
1543:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1522:
1516:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1492:
1484:
1482:
1480:
1472:
1466:
1463:
1460:knowledge. --
1459:
1456:knowledge is
1455:
1448:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1413:
1405:
1401:
1398:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1387:
1383:
1375:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1342:
1339:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1328:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1315:
1308:Pronunciation
1307:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1272:
1270:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1144:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1072:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
988:
985:
980:
976:
975:
974:
973:
970:
967:
962:
961:
960:
959:
956:
951:
944:
942:
940:
936:
932:
928:
915:
912:
908:
904:
900:
899:144.175.19.63
896:
888:
886:
882:
877:
871:Miscellaneous
870:
864:
861:
857:
856:
855:
854:
851:
848:
843:
842:
841:
840:
837:
829:
827:
826:
822:
818:
809:
807:
806:
803:
794:
792:
791:
788:
784:
776:
772:
768:
764:
761:
756:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
722:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
701:
696:
695:
692:
689:
682:
679:
675:
671:
666:
665:
664:
663:
660:
654:
653:
650:
644:
643:
640:
632:
628:
624:
621:
616:if water is H
613:
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
593:
588:
587:
584:
575:
571:
568:
564:
563:User Ajo Mama
560:
559:
558:
557:
554:
550:
549:User Ajo Mama
546:
545:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
514:
510:
507:
503:
502:
501:
494:
479:
475:
469:
466:
465:
462:
445:
441:
437:
436:
431:
428:
424:
423:
419:
413:
410:
407:
403:
387:
379:
375:
374:
371:
363:
359:
358:
355:
353:
348:
347:
342:
338:
334:
330:
324:
321:
320:
317:
300:
299:
294:
290:
289:
281:
270:
268:
265:
261:
260:
256:
249:
245:
240:
237:
234:
230:
225:
221:
215:
207:
206:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
3483:ELpoints #3)
3430:DannyHatcher
3426:
3407:
3396:
3388:
3351:semantically
3349:. This is a
3302:
3299:
3291:
3277:
3273:subjectivity
3268:
3266:
3263:
3259:
3240:
3210:
3199:
3193:
3192:
3169:Arthur Rubin
3164:
3152:
3137:Arthur Rubin
3132:
3112:
3101:
3095:
3094:
3058:
3040:a posteriori
3020:Arthur Rubin
3010:
2970:
2951:Response to
2950:
2931:Arthur Rubin
2927:relationship
2926:
2918:
2911:
2886:
2875:
2869:
2868:
2849:
2817:
2805:
2786:
2778:
2776:
2768:pro-cannabis
2767:
2757:
2748:psychiatrist
2743:
2709:
2708:publication
2697:
2693:
2672:
2661:
2642:
2641:publication
2630:
2626:
2607:
2592:
2581:
2576:
2526:Arthur Rubin
2515:
2513:
2507:
2506:
2486:ā Preceding
2481:
2478:
2476:
2468:
2460:
2445:
2432:
2405:
2387:āĀ Preceding
2383:
2381:
2369:67.250.1.128
2363:ā Preceding
2360:
2309:
2304:
2302:
2297:
2296:
2218:
2216:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2182:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2155:
2136:
2132:
2112:weasel words
2109:
2104:
2100:
2098:
2094:metaphysical
2082:
2078:
2058:
2043:
2024:
1999:(a priori),
1989:
1911:
1903:
1895:
1893:
1868:
1845:āĀ Preceding
1840:
1837:
1815:
1800:
1784:
1780:
1778:
1756:
1750:
1746:
1745:
1729:85.77.125.19
1725:The Fwanksta
1716:
1710:
1708:
1695:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1664:
1645:
1615:
1598:
1517:
1513:
1488:
1478:
1476:
1457:
1453:
1409:
1381:
1379:
1347:
1314:128.6.175.30
1311:
1295:Real Pattern
1289:
1286:
1276:
1268:
1186:
1182:
1157:
1125:
1122:a posteriori
1121:
1117:
1113:
1076:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1026:a posteriori
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
978:
948:
925:āĀ Preceding
921:
893:ā Preceding
889:
878:
874:
833:
813:
798:
782:
780:
759:
755:A Posteriori
754:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
726:A Posteriori
725:
710:WonderWander
708:
705:
702:
697:
685:
673:
669:
655:
645:
636:
630:
615:
612:a posteriori
611:
589:
579:
547:
537:a posteriori
525:a posteriori
518:
498:
473:
433:
370:Epistemology
328:
296:
286:
244:Epistemology
220:WikiProjects
203:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
3316:observation
3071:not a forum
3044:libertarian
2820:requires a
2384:a fortiori.
2186:experientia
2160:(short for
2005:Genius Loci
1819:āPreceding
1697:Tanstaafl28
1616:digressions
1491:Sascha.leib
1462:Quuxplusone
1436:Proper Noun
732:which says
148:free images
31:not a forum
3527:Categories
3389:References
3329:premises.
3278:Thanks, --
3063:propaganda
2915:ad hominem
2814:philosophy
2178:posteriore
2170:posteriori
2090:linguistic
2001:Arche Tipo
1929:disagree--
1721:empiricist
1705:David Hume
1668:Wireless99
1584:Runestone1
1273:definition
1191:Prokaryote
1140:Prokaryote
1079:Prokaryote
1060:Prokaryote
979:Monadology
966:Prokaryote
950:Prokaryote
885:user:Ginot
860:Prokaryote
836:Prokaryote
802:Prokaryote
760:black hole
691:Prokaryote
659:Prokaryote
649:Prokaryote
592:Prokaryote
304:Philosophy
293:philosophy
239:Philosophy
3347:necessary
3305:reasoning
3280:Jkriplean
3059:offending
2410:element:
2330:Skomorokh
2278:Skomorokh
2245:Skomorokh
2194:posterior
2027:Mavigogun
1649:knowledge
1601:Ricklaman
1510:Confusion
1447:lowercase
945:Citations
817:Dvandusen
777:Expansion
670:knowledge
208:is rated
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
3502:WP:ELMIN
3494:states:
3492:LINKFARM
3485:states:
3339:validity
3320:presence
3269:a priori
3243:speednat
3215:arbonaro
3165:a priori
3153:a priori
3117:arbonaro
3007:a priori
2974:contribs
2891:arbonaro
2858:New Year
2806:Fourthly
2777:stating
2593:Secondly
2522:article.
2488:unsigned
2408:concrete
2389:unsigned
2365:unsigned
1997:A Priori
1847:unsigned
1821:unsigned
1531:utcursch
1485:Spelling
1458:a priori
1454:A priori
1382:a priori
1358:Esedowns
1280:Nagelfar
1183:a priori
1114:a priori
1051:a priori
1043:a priori
1022:a priori
1018:a priori
1010:a priori
1002:a priori
927:unsigned
907:contribs
895:unsigned
576:Clean up
533:a priori
521:a priori
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
3373:Arnlodg
3355:Arnlodg
3343:present
3309:premise
3181:Hatting
3032:bigotry
2843:bossing
2789:bigotry
2744:Thirdly
2435:Philogo
1931:Philogo
1902:. Even
1781:correct
1653:Mallerd
1376:Hyphen?
1246:Mikey81
1126:content
763:Philogo
515:Mergers
495:Grammar
476:on the
331:on the
210:C-class
154:WPĀ refs
142:scholar
3510:Otr500
3454:Otr500
3327:future
3200:aurice
3185:wp:ani
3172:(talk)
3140:(talk)
3102:aurice
3075:WP:API
3023:(talk)
2934:(talk)
2876:aurice
2856:Happy
2299:alone.
2174:priore
2166:priori
2015:, and
1789:Ericjs
1440:cheese
1397:Jaymay
1324:Jaymay
1216:Jaymay
1162:Jaymay
1101:Jaymay
1089:Jaymay
984:Jaymay
955:Jaymay
847:Jaymay
787:Jaymay
678:Jaymay
639:Jaymay
583:Jaymay
567:Jaymay
561:Since
553:Jaymay
541:Jaymay
216:scale.
126:Google
3508:. --
3313:sense
3083:wp:pa
3079:wp:30
2906:is a
2852:WP:30
2582:First
2190:prior
1501:Pomte
1014:might
506:Pomte
449:Latin
440:Latin
412:Latin
386:Logic
248:Logic
197:This
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
3514:talk
3458:talk
3434:talk
3377:talk
3359:talk
3337:the
3324:past
3284:talk
3247:talk
2983:Cycl
2968:talk
2912:your
2834:MMPI
2812:and
2688:Dr.
2621:Dr.
2530:talk
2496:talk
2439:talk
2429:lede
2420:talk
2397:talk
2373:talk
2350:talk
2346:Nurg
2316:talk
2305:have
2261:talk
2227:talk
2206:post
2204:and
2202:ante
2176:and
2168:and
2143:talk
2120:talk
2116:yoyo
2110:The
2066:talk
2051:talk
2031:talk
1976:talk
1972:yoyo
1935:talk
1920:talk
1855:talk
1841:that
1829:talk
1817:one.
1808:talk
1793:talk
1785:does
1765:talk
1761:yoyo
1757:that
1733:talk
1632:talk
1628:yoyo
1605:talk
1588:talk
1567:talk
1563:yoyo
1535:talk
1362:talk
1299:talk
1250:talk
1187:form
1158:form
1118:form
1055:form
1047:form
935:talk
903:talk
821:talk
767:talk
714:talk
535:and
468:High
323:High
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
3345:as
3318:-a
3089:--
3011:not
2989:pia
2919:any
2845:me.
2781:is
2192:or
2096:."
1916:EPM
1898:to
1717:all
1380:Is
1290:any
1006:are
736:..
631:and
176:TWL
3529::
3516:)
3504::
3460:)
3436:)
3379:)
3361:)
3286:)
3249:)
2956::
2832:,
2828:,
2824:.
2808:,
2692:,
2686:ā
2680:ā
2658:ā
2625:,
2619:ā
2613:ā
2603:ā
2588:).
2498:)
2441:)
2422:)
2399:)
2375:)
2352:)
2318:)
2263:)
2229:)
2208:.
2196::
2180:.
2162:ab
2145:)
2122:)
2107:.
2068:)
2053:)
2033:)
2025:--
1978:)
1937:)
1922:)
1857:)
1831:)
1810:)
1795:)
1767:)
1735:)
1634:)
1607:)
1590:)
1569:)
1548:)
1533:|
1450:}}
1444:{{
1364:)
1301:)
1252:)
937:)
909:)
905:ā¢
883:--
823:)
785:-
769:)
716:)
637:-
350:/
246:/
242::
156:)
54:;
3512:(
3456:(
3432:(
3375:(
3357:(
3282:(
3245:(
3211:C
3194:M
3133:I
3113:C
3096:M
2986:o
2971:Ā·
2966:(
2887:C
2870:M
2791:"
2787:"
2528:(
2520:"
2516:"
2494:(
2437:(
2418:(
2395:(
2371:(
2348:(
2314:(
2259:(
2225:(
2158:a
2141:(
2118:(
2064:(
2049:(
2029:(
1974:(
1933:(
1918:(
1853:(
1827:(
1806:(
1791:(
1763:(
1731:(
1630:(
1603:(
1586:(
1565:(
1360:(
1297:(
1248:(
933:(
901:(
819:(
765:(
712:(
668:"
618:2
608:2
480:.
335:.
222::
172:Ā·
166:Ā·
158:Ā·
151:Ā·
145:Ā·
139:Ā·
133:Ā·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.