I have been reading some of the work done in the analysis of knowledge for an epistemology course. Stepping outside the debates being had as to what the definition of knowledge is I find myself questioning the idea of the analysis of knowledge in general. Most arguments I have read seem to be focused on giving conditions of knowledge that describe cases in which we intuitively think that a person knows something. But what is the validity of appealing to such an intuitive notion of knowledge for the basis of analysis? Aren't our intuitions about knowledge too idiosyncratic and inconsistent to ever give a precise analysis of what knowledge is? Is the analysis of knowledge really a philosophically interesting industry?