Sure. Analytic a priori statements (statements known PRIOR to sense experience) are always true. Things like 'A bachelor is an unmarried man' are true by definition; since a bachelor is defined as an unmarried man then a statement like 'A bachelor is an unmarried man' is NECESSARILY true (i.e. it literally cannot be false). This is opposed to synthetic a posteriori which is known only through sense experience (e.g. all bachelors are lonely). Nothing in the definition of a bachelor states that they must be lonely people, and only through observing/hearing about bachelors or observing/hearing about what people in a bachelor's situation typically are like can you come to such a conclusion (i.e. you need EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION). All empirical observations are subject to uncertainty (in the philosophical sense). The arguments describing these are too long to elaborate on here but Descartes lays down some important basics in Meditations.

Of course, purely analytic a priori statements aren't very useful. They are certain because they aren't contingent on the veracity of empirical observations, but they also therefore cannot describe the world in any useful manner.

All this, of course, is a rationalist perspective (knowledge being built PRIMARILY upon reason as opposed to PRIMARILY upon sense experience); Kant actually does attempt to rejoin the two views.