It is standard to describe philosophers as appealing to intuitions about cases as evidence for or against philosophical theories. However, the method of appealing to intuitions about cases has been widely criticized in recent philosophical debate. One central theme of this recent debate is that intuitions are ‘too psychological’ to provide evidence for the relevant philosophical theories which have a non-psychological subject matter (e.g. Deutsch, Kornblith, Williamson). I assess this criticism by focusing on philosophers’ use of the Gettier case to reject the Justified True Belief theory of knowledge. In more detail, I distinguish several senses in which it has been claimed that intuitions are ‘too psychological’, and argue that none of them support this common criticism of using intuitions as evidence in philosophy.