I confess freely to loving analytic philosophy, but I am sometimes worried that I've chosen the wrong career. I mean, here I am, arguing for theories for which the only thing that appears to count as evidence is the intuitive agreement of other language users. All analytic claims are subject to revision in light of some experience.
All experiences are subject to reinterpretation in light of some analytic claim.
Where Quine asserts the priority of experience, Descartes asserted the priority of analyticity. These reflections suggest what, to me, is a different way of resolving the whole debate. All generalizations are provisional. All generalizations are generalizations. Clearly true, but also clearly not helpful.