After reading human action I was so convinced that apriorism was obvious as the way to go specifically because the empirical method can’t narrow the variables to a workable experiment or study that I took it for granted that it wasn’t something people would argue with. But in recent weeks I’ve been seeing some very defiant bloggers and references to many critiques of apriorism. I’m hoping to get something specific to demonstrate both why the empirical method is so seriously flawed but more specifically either a defense of the existence of the synthetic a priori, or why analytic a priori isn’t merely tautologous or better yet why a tautology can be learned from. And how to refute the argument that analytic a priori statements are based on defInitions and not necessarily reality.
Thanks this has been all consuming for a while now.