Now, you have to be a non-trivial thinker to understand that, but yet again, tha

Now, you have to be a non-trivial thinker to understand that, but yet again, that is why we need empiricism. Not because we can’t know something we deduce is true. But because we can’t know when the Rational(a priori) is either false or deceptive.

The apriori is merely a special case of the empirical (observable) just like prime numbers are a special case of the numerical.

But while many a priori statements allow us to make first order (current state) conclusions, they rarely if ever allow us to make second order (consequent state) deductions.

The reason is that a priori statements generally do not tell us limits. And it is limits- where something fails- that determine a thing’s truth not it’s more obvious conveniences.