Final answer:
Counterpossible reasoning highlights the limitations of using folk intuitions in philosophical conceptual analysis and underscores the importance of rigorous methods like counterexamples and thought experiments.
Step-by-step explanation:
Counterpossible reasoning indeed presents challenges when using folk intuitions in conceptual analysis. Intuitions are helpful in certain contexts, but when they extend into areas without consensus—such as the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' in moral philosophy—caution is needed. Moreover, philosophers use both intuition and common sense to assess the validity of concepts like knowledge, truth, and justification. However, the reliance on intuitive judgments can be problematic, as seen in the anchoring bias and the availability heuristic, which show how easily our intuitive assessments can be misled. Thus, counterpossible reasoning illustrates the limitations of intuition in epistemology and the importance of rigorous conceptual analysis, including the use of counterexamples and thought experiments to refine our understanding of philosophical concepts.