The “a priori fallacy” is only applicable if someone has decided ahead of time as to what their conclusion is going to be,
***That’s pretty damned close to what she said she did, close enough to call it out as the fallacy it is. Then she tried to uphold it as sound reasoning.
without considering any other particulars
***Sure, people who engage in a priori reasoning “consider” other particulars and whatnot, but the conclusion is pre-drawn. We see this with judges all the time, like the last fed judge who couldn’t even say what a woman is but the dems gonna vote for her anyways.
or pieces of evidence on matters which are explicitly empirical.
***The conclusion is already drawn. They proceed on the evidence with that conclusion already in mind. It is a fallacy.
Looking at America’s track record with foreign military interventions (and their consequences) over the past 20 years and deciding “let’s hold off on doing that for a change”
***Uhh, that is completely inapplicable in this situation due to its uniqueness. Can you name any other country that gave up hundreds of nukes that were abandoned on their countryland and honored the denuke agreement? Nope, because this situation is unique. But the apriorists are saying “we shouldn’t get involved in European squabbles” and then proceed to force that round peg into that square hole of European squabbles without considering the uniqueness of the situation.
is hardly an example of the “a priori fallacy.”
***This situation shows it to be a prime example of such a fallacy. Plus, she has engaged in several other fallacies as well.
This is also notwithstanding the fact “a priori reasoning” in and of itself isn’t fallacious if you’re dealing with truths which aren’t empirical.
***That’s a bunch of gobbledegook. There’s nothing empirical about her statements.
empirical truth noun
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical%20truth#:~:text=Definition%20of%20empirical%20truth,also%20actual%20truth%2C%20contingent%20truth
Definition of empirical truth
: exact conformity as learned by observation or experiment between judgments or propositions and externally existent things in their actual status and relations
— called also actual truth, contingent truth
This is an example of "mind reading", because you have no way of knowing with certitude that our conclusions are "pre-drawn" instead of being informed by how recent historical events have unfolded, by predictions as to what courses of action should or shouldn't be taken (which may not jive with your predictions), and by different moral value judgments as to what the proper course of action should be, among other things.
That’s a bunch of gobbledegook. There’s nothing empirical about her statements.
Thank you for making my point: when one is outside the realm of purely empirical information, "a priori" reasoning is not only not fallacious, it's completely normal. In like manner, there are a class of truths which are outside the realm of empirical or scientific reasoning, so harping on about the "a priori fallacy" when the data set includes non-empirical information (such as one's philosophical axioms, the amoral weighing of what's in the current national interest, and so forth) is a fool's game.