 The Quinean reply to all these approaches is, again, his main challenge: how in the end are we to distinguish such claims of “rational insight,” “primitive compulsion,” inferential practices or folk beliefs, from merely some deeply entrenched empirical convictions, folk practices or, indeed, from mere dogmas? Isn’t the history of thought littered with what have turned out to be deeply mistaken claims, inferences and platitudes that people at the time have found “rationally” and/or “primitively compelling,” say, with regard to God, sin, disease, biology, sexuality, or even patterns of reasoning themselves? Again, consider the resistance Kahneman (2011) reports people displaying to correction of the fallacies they commit in a surprising range of ordinary thought (cf. fn 7 above); or in a more disturbing vein, how the gifted mathematician, John Nash, claimed that his delusional ideas “about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did” (Nasar 1998, p. 11). Introspected episodes, primitive compulsions, intuitions about possibilities, or even tacit folk theories alone are not going to distinguish the analytic, since these all may be due as much to people’s (possibly mad!) empirical theories as to any special knowledge of meaning.