My philosophy work isn't in philosophy of mind or epistemology, so I am not an expert on the question you ask. I think you'd be interested in Quine's essay on "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," of which this is a good summary: https://www.uky.edu/~cebatt2/teaching/PHI_515_Sep2009/PHI_515_Quine.pdf He talks about the analytic/synthetic distinction, but it is close to the a priori/a posteriori distinction. My sense is that in general, philosophers no longer debate either distinction because whether one agrees with neuroscience or not, nearly everyone acknowledges that knowledge and meaning are learned through experience and socialization.