A priori reasoning is deductive in nature and relies on assumptions that are taken to be true without any evidence. A posteriori reasoning, on the other hand, is inductive and relies on evidence that is gathered from observation

## A priori reasoning

(Photo by Victor on Unsplash )

A priori reasoning is when you reason from first principles, It is based on logic or reason alone.

Priori reasoning is deductive, meaning that it starts with general principles and then applies them to specific cases. This type of reasoning is considered more reliable because it doesn’t rely on empirical evidence (evidence that is gathered through observation). This type of reasoning is often used in mathematics, where you start with axioms (general truths) and then derive theorems (specific truths) from them.

## A posteriori reasoning

A Posteriori reasoning is when you reason from empirical evidence.

A posteriori reasoning, on the other hand, is inductive, meaning that it starts with specific cases and then tries to find general principles that explain them. This type of reasoning is often used in science, where you collect data from experiments and then try to form theories that explain that data.

A posteriori reasoning is a type of reasoning that relies on experience or empirical evidence. In other words, it is based on what you know from the world around you.this type of reasoning is based on induction, meaning that it starts with specific observations and moves to general conclusions. This type of reasoning is considered less reliable because it is based on limited evidence.

## Is an inductive argument a posteriori?

A priori reasoning is deductive in nature. It involves drawing conclusions by logically deducing them from known premises or axioms, without requiring empirical observation or additional information. The conclusions reached through a priori reasoning are certain, provided that the premises are true and the logic is sound. Examples of a priori reasoning include mathematical proofs and syllogisms.

There are two types of inductive arguments:

Strong Inductive Argument: A strong inductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises makes the conclusion highly probable. The conclusion of a strong inductive argument is likely to be true, but not necessarily certain.

Weak Inductive Argument: A weak inductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises does not make the conclusion highly probable. The conclusion of a weak inductive argument may be true, but it is not likely to be true based solely on the premises presented in the argument.

Both strong and weak inductive arguments are based on observations and evidence, rather than logical deduction from known premises. However, the strength of the argument is determined by the degree of probability that the conclusion is true, based on the premises presented.

Posteriori reasoning, also known as empirical reasoning or inductive reasoning, involves drawing conclusions based on observation and experience. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of posteriori reasoning:

1. Based on real-world evidence: Posteriori reasoning is based on real-world data, which provides a strong foundation for drawing conclusions. This makes it a valuable tool in fields such as science, where empirical evidence is crucial.
2. Allows for generalization: Posteriori reasoning allows for generalization from specific instances. By observing a pattern in a small set of data, we can infer that the pattern likely applies to a larger set of data.
3. Can lead to new discoveries: By observing phenomena and drawing conclusions based on evidence, posteriori reasoning can lead to new discoveries and insights. This is particularly useful in scientific research, where empirical data can reveal previously unknown phenomena.

1. Limited by sample size: Posteriori reasoning is limited by the size of the sample used to draw conclusions. If the sample size is too small or unrepresentative, the conclusions drawn may not be accurate.
2. Vulnerable to biases: Posteriori reasoning is vulnerable to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, where we tend to seek out evidence that confirms our pre-existing beliefs. This can lead to erroneous conclusions.
3. Cannot prove causality: Posteriori reasoning can establish correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causality. For example, just because two variables are observed to be correlated, it does not mean that one causes the other.

Priori reasoning, also known as deductive reasoning, involves drawing conclusions based on logical reasoning and known premises. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of priori reasoning:

1. Logical consistency: Priori reasoning is based on logical deduction and is therefore inherently consistent. This makes it a valuable tool in fields such as mathematics and philosophy, where logical consistency is essential.
2. Provides certainty: Priori reasoning provides certainty in conclusions, as long as the premises are true. This makes it a useful tool in legal and contractual contexts, where certainty is important.
3. Can be used to predict outcomes: Priori reasoning can be used to predict outcomes based on known premises. This makes it useful in fields such as economics and decision-making.

1. Limited by premises: Priori reasoning is limited by the accuracy and completeness of the premises used to draw conclusions. If the premises are incomplete or inaccurate, the conclusions drawn may not be reliable.
2. Cannot establish new knowledge: Priori reasoning is limited to conclusions that can be logically deduced from existing premises. It cannot establish new knowledge or discoveries.
3. Can be vulnerable to errors: Priori reasoning can be vulnerable to errors in logic, such as fallacies or flawed premises. This can lead to erroneous conclusions.

## Examples of a priori reasoning

Here are some examples of a priori reasoning:

• All bachelors are unmarried. John is a bachelor. Therefore, John is unmarried.
In this example, the conclusion can be logically deduced from the premise without requiring any additional information. It is an example of a priori reasoning.
• All squares have four sides of equal length. Figure ABCD is a square. Therefore, all four sides of figure ABCD are of equal length.
In this example, the conclusion can be logically deduced from the premise without requiring any additional information. It is an example of a priori reasoning.
• All birds have feathers. An ostrich is a bird. Therefore, an ostrich has feathers.
In this example, the conclusion can be logically deduced from the premise without requiring any additional information. It is an example of a priori reasoning.
• All mothers are parents. Jane is a mother. Therefore, Jane is a parent.
In this example, the conclusion can be logically deduced from the premise without requiring any additional information. It is an example of a priori reasoning.

These examples demonstrate that a priori reasoning relies on logical deduction from known premises and does not require empirical observation or additional information to arrive at a conclusion.

## Examples of a posteriori reasoning

Here are some examples of a posteriori reasoning:

• All the apples I have seen are red. Therefore, all apples are likely to be red.
In this example, the conclusion is based on observation and experience, rather than logical deduction. The conclusion is inferred from the observed characteristics of the apples, making it an example of a posteriori reasoning.
• The sun has risen every day so far. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.
In this example, the conclusion is based on empirical evidence rather than logical deduction. The conclusion is inferred from past observations of the sun’s rising behavior, making it an example of a posteriori reasoning.
• Studies show that people who exercise regularly are more likely to have better physical health. Therefore, if I exercise regularly, I will likely have better physical health.
In this example, the conclusion is based on empirical evidence gathered through studies and research, rather than logical deduction. The conclusion is inferred from the observed correlation between regular exercise and better physical health, making it an example of a posteriori reasoning.
• I have observed that every time I eat ice cream, my stomach hurts. Therefore, eating ice cream causes my stomach to hurt.
In this example, the conclusion is based on personal observation and experience, rather than logical deduction. The conclusion is inferred from the observed correlation between eating ice cream and stomach pain, making it an example of a posteriori reasoning.

These examples demonstrate that a posteriori reasoning relies on observation and experience, rather than logical deduction from known premises. It involves drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence and data.

Featured Image by 愚木混株 cdd20 on Unsplash