Rob,
I agree with your comment that 'a little a priori knowledge goes a long way.' However, I find your a priori comment then contradicts your earlier comment:
"I think I do understand your position, I just don't find it enlightening."
The importance of, or shall I say, the lack of a priori knowledge is why this competition exits in the first place. We think that a posteriori knowledge (effects) supersedes a priori knowledge (cause). This same attitude and perspective is why physics is more about subjectivity than objectivity. We actually think our opinions matter when it comes down to understanding nature. How much more 'enlightening' can you get then to realize that if we do not factor the two types of selection events being used in scientific experiments then all we are doing is making highly calculated guesses without knowing why that is so.
If you want to know what happens when science holds a posteriori knowledge, i.e., effectual casualty - how effects causing effects, as superior over that of a priori knowledge then you may find my previous findings of interest:
"Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right"
As I have said before, nature is not about our opinons, yet here we are?
Manuel