It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:
transwiki cleanup
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. Shortcut: WP:TP A talk page is a special Wikipedia page containing discussion about the contents of its associated subject page. ...
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days.Prod, concern: transwiki cleanup This template was added 2007-02-08; five days from then is 2007-02-13.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy. Nominator: Please consider notifying the author(s) of this page using
The article has content that may be useful and possibly more appropriate at Wikipedia's sister project, Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either Wiktionary:Transwiki:A priori (law) or Wiktionary:A priori (law). It should no longer appear in CAT:MtW and should not be re-added there. The final disposition of this article on Wikipedia has not yet been determined. It may be redirected, nominated for deletion, or expanded if possible. Note that {{vocab-stub}} is deprecated. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If {{vocab-stub}} was removed when this article was transwikied, and the article is deemed encyclopedic, there should be a more suitable category for it. Wiktionary is a multilingual, Web-based project to create a free content dictionary, available in over 150 languages. ... Part of What Wikipedia is not. ...
adj. based on deduction or hypothesis, rather than on hard facts or knowledge. Also called a priori assumptions.
It is important to understand that the strength of a conclusion is a function both of the quality of the evidence provided in its support, and the a priori probability of the claim being supported. There can never be a single standard of "acceptable evidence" that will suffice to render every claim equally plausible. Suppose, for example, that a reasonably reliable source tells us (a) that President Clinton has vetoed legislation that places restrictions on trade with China and (b) that Newt Gingrich has switched to the Democratic party. Most people would be much more confident of the truth of the first report than of the second, even though the source is identical. The difference lies in the a priori plausibility of the claims.
Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Want to know more? Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:
Press Releases |
Feeds |
Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the
GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms, 1022, m
Feeds |
Contact