Definition of
   a priori





At this website i try to elucidate the concept knowledge. According to my view, all to many try to relativise this concept.


Simple tale or complicated truth


The voice of reason may be much fainter than the loud and clear voice of an erroneous intuition,
and questioning your intuitions is unpleasant when you face the stress of a big decision.

Kahneman 2011 - Thinking, Fast and Slow, p.417

The discussion about what is included in the term knowledge has become more urgent as we through internet directly may receive statements that have not passed a "sieve of truth".

Such "sieves" have earlier existed in form of that a person, organisation or publication would lose credibility, and thereby status and maybe market share, if caught with an error.


But with internet it has become more obvious than ever, that if a message is shared frequently enough it is experienced as credible, even if it is not conforming with anything that really has occurred or has been observed.

Nowadays we are reached by more information and disinformation than ever - every day is April Fools' Day.

Frans 2017 - Larmrapporten, Att skilja vetenskap från trams, p.10,


Redefined knowledge


Some individuals, groups, organisations and academic branches exaggerate credibility of propositions that are not verified. They try to modify the concept of knowledge by using arguments like:

- There are different types of knowledge.

- There are different types of truth.



Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

Oxford English Dictionary, Word of the Year 2016


One method creates knowledge


My opinion is that we know many different things, but that only one method may create credible knowledge:

Knowledge becomes credible when it is based on conclusions from credible reasoning based on credible premises.


At this website I discuss how arguments and premises may be regarded as credible.

I also demonstrate why some traditionally respected arguments actually are erroneous.




Theory of knowledge, or epistemology, has historically been created from a mixture of factual, ideological, sectarian and religious beliefs.

Philosophers have strived towards their desired goals, and have ignored arguments and publications that falsified these.

Philosophy implies discussion without references to empirical foundations

Persson (2013) -

The result then may become a verbosity that is used to cover weak or absent arguments.

An example was seen when Immanuel Kant exchanged Plato's statements about "absolutely certain arguments" (Forms) that we have learnt "before we were born" into "transcendentally known knowledge".


At that moment also the statements became transcendental (yes, it's an irony).

What you clearly cannot express you do not know;
with thought words are born at human lips:
the blurred said is the blurred thought.

Tegnér 1820 - Samlade skrifter, 3rd part (Norstedt & Söner, 1924), p.96 [transl.].

Beautiful emptiness

Another example of (impressing) verbosity without content is given by the phrase below. Neither necessity, truth nor knowledge has ever been shown to exist in the form that the author probably refers to:

Just as necessity is truth in all possible worlds, so knowledge is truth in all epistemically possible worlds.

Stalnaker 2019 - Knowledge and Conditionals p.12.


Philosophy of knowledge


Epistemology may coarsely be divided into two basic opinions: Scepticism /Skepticism/ and Rationalism.

Extreme forms of the two opinions can immediately be discarded as untenable, but the balanced versions require a more thorough discussion.

Balanced sceptics claim that the only ultimate source for trustworthy propositions is sensory experience (refined into perception). Through reasoning this source may be built into very probable, i.e. trustworthy, opinions.

This thesis forms the philosophical basis for empiricism and scientific methodology.

Balanced rationalists support the balanced sceptical opinion, and in addition claim existence of knowledge that ultimately has been created from some kind of non-sensory source, and that such knowledge is possible to apply in our world.



Of course trustworthy opinions exist outside of the philosophers' common domains.

For example we may learn to bike by imitation of other bicyclists and may then become more skilled by association between different actions and improvements or impairment.

Such knowledge is hence empiric, as the ultimate premises of the activities were perception.

We may also conclude existence of innate, genetically stored, abilities that lead to that all living beings are well adapted to our world. Beings that were not adapted well enough passed away before obtaining reproducing offspring.