 Many resist this conclusion. According to one proponent, a conceptual analysis proceeds “by appeal to what seems to us most obvious and central about [the concept in question]…as revealed by our intuitions about possible cases” (Jackson 1998, p. 31). “[T]he general coincidence in intuitive responses [to possible cases] reveals something about the folk theory of [the concept in question]” (Jackson, 1998, p. 32). But the question that plagues conceptual analysis, post-Quine, is what kind of knowledge such a procedure actually yields. Why should ordinary intuitions about the extension of a concept be deemed reliable or informative? Why think the “folk” are right?