I had a chess acquaintence at a now defunct chess site gobbled up by big chess who jokingly referred on occassion to ‘the knowledge’ as a most precious item to aspire to.
Sometimes I post at philosophy spots and had the occassion to clarify a point about metaphysics and knowledge. Someone felt that belief is an unsound basis to attain ‘the knowledge’ and one should be limited to empirical onservations, a priori judgements etc. Kant did write about synthetic a priori judgment though; fundamentally pure reason as a basis for making inferences about the unknown. Socrates also tried to show that some knowledge is innate and others that natural right and wrong for human behavior. Not to make the subject obtuse though…
I wrote and cited Stephen Moctezuma within this paragraph; The knowledge- a posteriori, is known, yet synthetic a priori judgments are inducted and fused “judgments that are known through pure reason alone, independent of experience, and they are ampliative to knowledge” aka metaphysics. ref
In using reason to make synthetic judgments concerning theoretical structures of the Universe(s) and its fields like one on Einstein general theory and gravity that are ongoing subjects of thought and testing when possible. the idea of abstract though prior to testing is exemplified https://theconversation.com/we-tested-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-on-the-scale-of-the-universe-heres-what-we-found-194118