A priori knowledge: does it exist?

The a priori knowledge Quine endorsed appears to be "know how." The distinction between "know how" and "know that" (whether there is one) is also an interesting issue.

Okay, to be precise, as demonstrated on TV , babies hold their breath in water automatically, and rudimentary locomotion movements also take place. Older children have lost those reflexes (aka 'hard wired a priori knowledge' ?)
The problem with bringing in words like 'reality' is that it begs the epistemological issue of the definition of 'knowledge' per se. ) Contextually, the word 'reality' simply denotes a state of social agreement as to 'what is the case'. Any claims about 'absolute reality' are equivalent to religious ones. Following, Kant noumena are inaccessible, and following Nietzsche they are irrelevant.

I have heard it said that babies have only 3 innate fears. Loud noises, heights, and another one I can't recall.

Put a crawling baby on a table top, and he will not crawl over the edge. He seems to "know" that it aint too smart to do that.

Perhaps.

We really do not know...do we?

And much of what humans try to pass off as "I know"...is not "know" at all.

Or at least, so it seems.

What is "social agreement" eh ? Funny enough you just did a metaphysical claim about "social agreement" being the source of knowledge...how do you know you not dreaming lad ?

One thing I do know, FOR SURE, is this:

"Social agreement" can kiss my black ass.

You might be interested in Pyrrho of Elis' response to that: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pyrrho/

So far, it's the most stringent approach to epistemology I've found. Briefly, it allows knowledge of immediate appearances (sensory input), the experience of having thoughts, and a very limited range of commonsense heuristics, such as, if there's smoke, there's probably fire and if there's a scar, there used to be a wound.

Regarding a priori knowledge, a well-disciplined Pyrrhonist would consider that to be a matter of metaphysics, with a nonevident solution. Therefore, they would weigh both arguments and, if nothing decisive is found, would suspend judgment about it. They say this practice leads to peace of mind, ataraxia. Not very useful if your goal is obtaining certainty about the way the world really is beyond appearances, though.

i think i'm going to stop trying to respond using reason in this forum, and just start lobbing philosophical grenades...so: Carl Jung?

Animals know to care for their young.
Birds know how to migrate over incredible distances.
Is it reasonable to assume humans have similar knowledge?

I'll let you know after I figure out where I left the car keys.