system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
argument against a priori knowledge

I was reading a paper that says the following:

*"According to one influential argument against the existence of a priori knowledge, there is no a priori knowledge because (i) no belief is immune to revision, and (ii) if there were a priori knowledge, at least some beliefs would be unrevisable."*

Please note I am not a philosopher. I am just interested in topics related to philosophy. I studied law.

Now, I am thinking how can you explain the statement "every mother has a child" or 1+1=2 or "single men are not married" . How are those not unrevisable? Those are things that are accurate dead on their face and require no or minimal independant verification or observation.

Thoughts would be appreciated I would like to learn more about this subject.
gpt
Kant responded to Hume’s argument for the existence of a priori knowledge by arguing that in addition to matters of fact, which Kant calls “analytic a priori” ( all bachelors are unmarried) — there are “synthetic a priori” statements which are derived from the combination of basic concepts; mathematics is synthetic a priori because “12” isn’t a concept that is already contained in “7+5”

Quine is a modern philosopher who rejects the analytic-synthetic distinction altogether. Quine says that all “analytic” truths require synonymity with facts in the world. Synonymity requires synthetic propositions, so all analytic truths and be reduced to synthetic truth. This seems to be close the kind of argument against a priori that you presented, that we could could revise our previously held a priori truth because or scientific understanding of the world changes.