- analytic = a semantic property (or predicate)
- a priori = an epistemic property (or predicate)
- (Only?) analytic statements can be known a priori. (The logical positivist position.)
- No (purely?) analytic statement exists. (Quine’s position.)
- Therefore there is no a priori. (Quine’s position – though not precisely his argument.)
Is the neat little traditional distinction between a priori reasoning and the experiential concepts required for a priori reasoning really acceptable? Rabinowitz takes the case of mathematical knowledge. He offers two descriptions of the same mathematical process. One which accounts for the a posteriori part. And the other which doesn't.
Rabinowitz, Dani. (2008) ‘What, if anything, does the a priori/a posteriori distinction come to?’