2

Analytic philosophy primarily tries to solve problems a priori. Science can be considered to be synthetic a posteriori, based of some a priori theoretical framework. But would any conclusions that you come to (rigorously and objectively) through a posteriori analysis be considered scientific?

RECURSIVE FARTS
  • 848
  • 1
  • 6
  • 17
  • Can you give a citation for the claim "analytic philosophy primarily tries to solve problems a priori"? I'm not sure I buy that. Maybe it's because I'm a modern philosophy scholar -- not a contemporary analytic. – virmaior Nov 12 '14 at 06:29

1 Answers1

2

The term "analytic philosophy" comes from the logical empiricists who thought (with Wittgenstein) that philosophy is pure a-priori language analysis whereas science is about confronting claims to the world a-posteriori.

Following this framework there is no such thing as "a posteriori analysis" because you need to be clear about what you mean before testing a claim empirically, so the analysis part has to be done a priori. Furthermore you don't need any empirical data to do language analysis and clarify what you mean.

Anyway, today this clearcut distinction between science and philosophy, or between a priori analysis and a posteriori synthesis, is often rejected (following Quine's critics, notably). Things are more complex.

Quentin Ruyant
  • 5,858
  • 16
  • 29