Empiricism&Apriori Reasoning.

I'm not going to lie. I absolutely dreaded the politics lecture, from the second I found out it was the next module. Politics is definitely not a subject i'd slip into my 'strength' catagory. It isn't that I don't like it, I just find it a difficult concept to talk about! However, it is key in understanding the way our society works, and I appreciated the opportunity to know more!
Having missed the first lecture due to personal events, I could not help thinking that I was off to a brilliant start. I probably would not understand what Chris was talking about, but I would soldier on none the less.
Empiricism, a complicated word, but yes! I understand the meaning. Although a very basic (very, very basic) understanding I was surprised at how much the topic interested me. I do to a certain extent agree with the argument. In this modern society we are a very much 'seeing is believing' culture. That is what I understand empiricism to be, an ideology that can be observed or experienced directly. You know, an idea that can be supported by evidence.
An example of an empirical argument would be that the amount of benefits being given out has increased. There is sufficient evidence to support this. With the decline in economic activity, many companies have shut down and many jobs have been cut. The outcome of this being that many people have now been left with no option other than to apply for jobseekers allowance.
My understanding of A priori is that it is reasoning that cannot be proven as true or false until such an event occurs that proves it to be true or false. A good example that Chris gave was David Icke and his belief that the the 'rulers' were actually lizards or extra terrestrial race. Due to the fact that there is no evidence to prove otherwise there is only reasoning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctIpUmJjkAs - Whether you believe it or not is upto you!
An example I could give of A Priori reasoning is that of "ghosts" or "witchcraft". There is no evidence to prove that any of these do not exist yet there is no 'real' evidence that they do. We're lead into a state of mind that perhaps doubts that 'true' paranormal activity exists because of such people as mediums and ghosthunters. Until there is any evidential proof it is upto the man as to what he believes. Also in regards to witchcraft it is no longer dominant in society where religion is no longer dominant. In many instances, "witches" were only witches if they were practicing something other than the dominant religion. So many people may argue that although it may appear that it does not exist it may not be defined in the same way as it was 200 years ago.
My attitude to Empiricism? Although I mostly agree with the view that 'seeing is believing' there are some instances that blur the black and white lines. With regards to the A Priori argument that I gave earlier, if there is no factual evidence to support that there is no paranormal actuvity, then surely men must have a 'spirit' of somekind? Then the definition of the empirical economic man would be untrue.