I came up with this analogy to think about prior and new knowledge: Aliens. If aliens exist, they will have existed a priori, or before thought or knowledge. G

I came up with this analogy to think about prior and new knowledge: Aliens. If aliens exist, they will have existed a priori, or before thought or knowledge. Granted, they wouldn't have existed a priori from their standpoint, but the logical conclusion, once you've found some aliens, is that there are always more aliens. i.e. If life is a "thing" in the universe, it is a "thing" because of a priori knowledge. If aliens don't exist, then that fact would also be a priori, given you could do an exhaustive search for aliens in the universe. As you probably can't do an exhaustive search because of size/energy constraints, you can look at the claim "there are no aliens" as one which is unprovable, and thus irrational. i.e. If we never find aliens in the universe, it is a "thing" that can not be a priori (or a posteriori for that matter). This "alternate fact" itself may be a priori, inasmuch as the state of being of some things may not be proved while being limited to observations (and perhaps perception) within the search scope. Edited for logic errors. Also, the last statement here takes a stab at why the current administration's use of alternate facts can be considered a "tactic" in which the scope of observation and perception of others is greatly limited.