(March 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm)Frank Wrote: I disagree. I'm simply saying a priori and posteriori knowledge doesn't require proof in the way you're demanding. The fact that tunafish exist is posteriori knowledge, and it is an allowable presumption we can base conclusions on.
And that's all it is. A presumption. It cannot be proven and hence anything based off it cannot be conclusive. As allowable or reasonable as the assumptions may intuitively be, the fact remains that we cannot prove tunafish to exist. Everything beyond "I think therefore I am" could simply be a delusion of the mind. It doesn't matter what is sensible or intuitive. The possibility is real and therefore science can never prove anything to be concrete and absolute beyond any reasonable (or unreasonable) doubt. As Adrian said, refer yourself to the China thread. It's all ridiculous and tedious but valid insofar as it shows that we cannot prove things scientifically.
