A defense of a reliabilist account of a-priori knowledge (Philip Kitcher)

Kitcher's analysis of a priori knowledge has been widely criticized, by advocates of a so-called "modest" conception of a priori knowledge, for imposing unreasonably high standards for a priori knowledge. More recently, it has been criticized for entailing that it's impossible for us to have empirical knowledge of an a priori knowable proposition, I defend Kitcher's analysis against both charges. In so doing, I note that Kitcher's analysis does not entail the conclusions that Kitcher defends; in particular, it is consistent with our having a priori knowledge of mathematical truth.