Where does a priori knowledge come from?

[bahman]

It seems to me that all knowledge that we have is through experience since a person who does not have any capacity to experience from his/her childhood cannot have any knowledge. Therefore all knowledge is a posteriori.

[surreptitious57]

A posteriori is knowledge derived from empiricism and it pertains specifically to scientific knowledge
A priori is knowledge derived from axioms deemed to be self evident and so no empiricism is required

Example : all bachelors are unmarried is a priori because a bachelor is an unmarried man
This is a self evident axiom that uses logic rather than empiricism to determine the truth

Empiricism is only required for statements about observable phenomena not logic or math

[bahman]

A posteriori is knowledge derived from empiricism and it pertains specifically to scientific knowledge
A priori is knowledge derived from axioms deemed to be self evident and so no empiricism is required

Example : all bachelors are unmarried is a priori because a bachelor is an unmarried man
This is a self evident axiom that uses logic rather than empiricism to determine the truth

Empiricism is only required for statements about observable phenomena not logic or math

Do you think that a person who cannot have any experience can know that all bachelors are unmarried is true?

[surreptitious57]

Do you think that a person who cannot have any experience can know that all bachelors are unmarried is true ?

They dont need experience only knowledge of what a bachelor is and once they have it they know it is true
Because there is a causal relationship between every word and its definition so it is automatically a priori

[commonsense]

Do you think that a person who cannot have any experience can know that all bachelors are unmarried is true ?

No human can be without experience. No experience can be void of knowledge.

Through whatever experiences a person has had and whatever knowledge a person gains from those experiences, an individual may not have learned what defines a bachelor.

However, knowledge of the vocabulary of one’s native language or knowledge of how to use a dictionary is sufficient for an individual to know that all bachelors are unmarried men.

When a statement or claim is accepted as true by most people, it is a priori , it is axiomatic and heuristic, by definition or by consensus, if you will.

[bahman]

Let me see if I can summarize things: A priori knowledge is about a relation which exists between things which we have experienced.

[commonsense]

Let me see if I can summarize things: A priori knowledge is about a relation which exists between things which we have experienced...

...or have prior knowledge of without direct experience.

[Impenitent]

a priori (literally before experience) "knowledge" is derived from the empirical experience of the square root of negative one...

-Imp

[Scott Mayers]

A posteriori is knowledge derived from empiricism and it pertains specifically to scientific knowledge
A priori is knowledge derived from axioms deemed to be self evident and so no empiricism is required

Example : all bachelors are unmarried is a priori because a bachelor is an unmarried man
This is a self evident axiom that uses logic rather than empiricism to determine the truth

Empiricism is only required for statements about observable phenomena not logic or math

Definitions and Axioms are only assumed conditionally. A priori refers to the literal inputs used by any logic that is not based upon a posteriori inputs. It is any assumption not founded on the senses with exception to the assumption of the senses themselves. So, the self reflected kind of definition of "I think therefore I am" is a priori when one assimilates the factors of thinking and being. It is also a posteriori in that all we can judge anything about observations requires the default to be able to observe.

[Scott Mayers]

It seems to me that all knowledge that we have is through experience since a person who does not have any capacity to experience from his/her childhood cannot have any knowledge. Therefore all knowledge is a posteriori.

If by the act of "knowing" is what you mean by "knowledge", then this suffices. But the actual referents of thought external to humans or other animate beings, is also a kind of 'knowledge' that differs. We have to be cautious of being human-centric about reality in the same way we were about thinking the Earth was at the center of the Universe.

"apriori assumptions can be assumed true of nature. For instance,

Example of a real a priori statement necessarily true: There is either no facts, exactly some finite set of facts, or an unending indeterminate quantity of facts about any given reality.

[Speakpigeon]

It seems to me that all knowledge that we have is through experience since a person who does not have any capacity to experience from his/her childhood cannot have any knowledge. Therefore all knowledge is a posteriori.

Knowledge is called a posteriori when it is derived from observation.
Knowledge is called a priori when it is not derived from observation.
It seems that all examples of a priori knowledge come down to instances of logical inference.
If so, then all knowledge is a posteriori except for the "little bit" which is logical reasoning itself and whatever inferences we care to produce from the bits of a posteriori or a priori knowledge we already have.
However, you're correct in that at least some a posteriori knowledge is necessary to produce any new knowledge using inference. If no a posteriori knowledge, then no inference from known facts and no a priori knowledge produced from inference from a posteriori knowledge.
Yet, even with zero a posteriori knowledge, a human knows something, i.e. logic (or if you prefer "logical reasoning").
Please note this applies to any normal human being before he could perceive anything of his environment in the world.
Also note that such a human has no knowledge of the world. He only knows logic and whatever else may happens in his mind. For example, if he feels tired, then he may infer that he feels something, which would be true and therefore proper knowledge, but not a posteriori knowledge.
I guess the broader point is that perception is not enough in itself to provide a real understanding of the world around you. A logical sense is also absolutely necessary and it is necessary from day one. In effect, one could argue that nearly all knowledge is a mix of a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
Still, it is also arguable, and I would argue it, that our logical sense is a proper sense of perception. If so, then even a priori knowledge is in fact a posteriori knowledge, which is indeed my view, so I agree with your point but not quite for the reasons you give.
EB

[thedoc]

"You should have known that". Many times I have been expected to know something that I had no experience or knowledge of. If you want someone to know something, tell them, the worst that can happen is that they already knew it.

[Systematic]

It seems to me that all knowledge that we have is through experience since a person who does not have any capacity to experience from his/her childhood cannot have any knowledge. Therefore all knowledge is a posteriori.

My Latin/English dictionary says it comes from the former.
But, joking aside, a priori statements come from the part of the brain that realizes when a statement's opposite does not make any sense. I'm rather suspicious of that function of the brain, due to its long track record of fallibility. It often turns out to be more rational that thinkers be open to alternative explanations rather than disbelieving them due to contrary a priori premises.