Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: intuition in philosophy

  1. #1 intuition in philosophy 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    58
    what is the role of intuition in philosophy?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,516
    Read all about the concept of intuition in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/.


    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; January 28th, 2018 at 02:20 PM. Reason: Spelling Error
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    58
    Intuition about a person. Where does the question of belief arise if your intuition about a person turns out to be true.? Suppose I have an intuition that a person A is going to lose election, though he is not in the race now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29 View Post
    Intuition about a person. Where does the question of belief arise if your intuition about a person turns out to be true.? Suppose I have an intuition that a person A is going to lose election, though he is not in the race now.
    Intuition comes from experience, some people are more intuitive than others because they may process past experience better and recognize similar patterns occurring. Possible a good attribute to have, for survival or gain. An example being when a police detective has a "hunch" about something this can often lead to solving a crime. Though hunches and intuition are not reliable and never proved certain until found to be true. I have often had some intuition about something only to find it was unfounded. But I find as I get older and wiser (well maybe not wiser) my intuition has become slightly more reliable. Though I'm also more cautious and more open minded than I once was so maybe my belief in what I perceive to be truth is not always as strong as it was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by David M W View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29 View Post
    Intuition about a person. Where does the question of belief arise if your intuition about a person turns out to be true.? Suppose I have an intuition that a person A is going to lose election, though he is not in the race now.
    Intuition comes from experience, some people are more intuitive than others because they may process past experience better and recognize similar patterns occurring. Possible a good attribute to have, for survival or gain. An example being when a police detective has a "hunch" about something this can often lead to solving a crime. Though hunches and intuition are not reliable and never proved certain until found to be true. I have often had some intuition about something only to find it was unfounded. But I find as I get older and wiser (well maybe not wiser) my intuition has become slightly more reliable. Though I'm also more cautious and more open minded than I once was so maybe my belief in what I perceive to be truth is not always as strong as it was.
    Experience of the world makes our intuition better. They are lessons you do not forget in life. However, all people do not harness this ability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Ibu
    Ibu is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    13
    Intuition is a non-rational path to knowledge.
    Knowledge is justified true belief.
    Intuition comes after full knowledge of a problem or situation.
    Intuition is most helpful when traditional rational methods fail, repeatedly.
    Often intuitive solutions can be verified by rational means, but that is not required.
    Intuition is acquired through experience, reality that has not been experienced is not fully known, or understood.

    No path to knowledge, no method of acquiring knowledge, is fault free, intuition is no exception.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    76
    "Intuition is a non-rational path to knowledge".

    Well if it is built up from previous experience—generalizations about the world—then it’s hardly fair to say it is entirely “non-rational”.

    "Knowledge is justified true belief".

    Knowledge is, well, knowledge; it has nothing to do with belief.

    "Intuition comes after full knowledge of a problem or situation".

    I think you have this upside down: going back to a previous poster’s detective example—as you would have it: The “hunch” would come after both the guilty party and how the crime was committed were known.

    "Intuition is most helpful when traditional rational methods fail, repeatedly".

    Intuition is not any less helpful when there is a time constraint and “traditional rational methods” are simply unavailable. Think blitz chess.

    "Often intuitive solutions can be verified by rational means, but that is not required".

    It may or may not be required depending on the situation: I should think in the case of convicting someone of murder that one would need more than a detective’s hunch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexspits View Post
    Knowledge is, well, knowledge; it has nothing to do with belief.
    Actually justified true belief is pretty much the accepted definition of knowledge (here and here for example) although there is some dispute (here).
    Intuition fails as knowledge because it's (initially at least) "revealed" rather than "justified".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ibu
    Ibu is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    13
    Well if it is built up from previous experience—generalizations about the world—then it’s hardly fair to say it is entirely “non-rational”.
    It appears you are confusing 'non-rational' with irrational.
    The rational process involves logic and reasoning. Intuition bypasses these, jumps over them, to an immediate solution.
    Irrational is contrary to reasoning and logic, not at all the same.

    Knowledge is, well, knowledge; it has nothing to do with belief.

    If that is meant to be a persuasive argument, it fails.
    "Knowledge is knowledge" is a nonsense claim. It carries no information. Having read it, the reader is aware of nothing more then before reading it. Simply useless for imparting information.
    There can be no knowledge without belief. Chairs have no knowledge. Computers have no knowledge. Computers, books, etc contain data. That data may be decoded by a mind, and cause the mind to have beliefs about certain things. Such beliefs may, or may not be knowledge.
    Not all beliefs are knowledge, but certainly all knowledge requires beliefs.

    "Intuition comes after full knowledge of a problem or situation".

    I think you have this upside down: going back to a previous poster’s detective example—as you would have it: The “hunch” would come after both the guilty party and how the crime was committed were known.


    Like all words, 'intuition' has many meanings, many usages.
    When Einstein wrote "The
    intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." he was not talking about hunches. He was talking about intuition as a source of knowledge.
    When scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers talk about intuition, they are not talking about hunches. Such intuition solves the problem, it names the guilty party.

    Intuition is not any less helpful when there is a time constraint and “traditional rational methods” are simply unavailable. Think blitz chess.

    Such intuition is of no interest to men like Steve Jobs. It is of no interest to those who use intuition to solve problems.

    “The people in the Indian countryside don’t use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and their intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world. Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That’s had a big impact on my work.” Steve Jobs

    It may or may not be required depending on the situation: I should think in the case of convicting someone of murder that one would need more than a detective’s hunch.

    Any detective first determines the guilty party, then sets about providing the evidence necessary for a court of law, or to illicit a public confession. Knowing the guilty party is never sufficient. A confession told in private is not sufficient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibu View Post
    When Einstein wrote "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." he was not talking about hunches. He was talking about intuition as a source of knowledge.
    When scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers talk about intuition, they are not talking about hunches. Such intuition solves the problem, it names the guilty party.
    Nope. Intuition may provide insight but it doesn't reliably solve problems on its own.
    “The people in the Indian countryside don’t use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and their intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world.
    Citation needed.

    Any detective first determines the guilty party, then sets about providing the evidence necessary for a court of law, or to illicit a public confession. Knowing the guilty party is never sufficient. A confession told in private is not sufficient.
    No. Deciding the guilty party first is making an a priori assumption.
    Evidence is what should lead to a conclusion not the other way round.
    Granted intuition may lead to a correct conclusion, but not infallibly (or reliably) so.
    BTW the word elicit.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Ibu
    Ibu is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibu View Post
    When Einstein wrote "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." he was not talking about hunches. He was talking about intuition as a source of knowledge.
    When scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers talk about intuition, they are not talking about hunches. Such intuition solves the problem, it names the guilty party.
    Nope. Intuition may provide insight but it doesn't reliably solve problems on its own.

    Citation needed

    “The people in the Indian countryside don’t use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and their intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world.
    Citation needed.

    Any detective first determines the guilty party, then sets about providing the evidence necessary for a court of law, or to illicit a public confession. Knowing the guilty party is never sufficient. A confession told in private is not sufficient.
    No. Deciding the guilty party first is making an a priori assumption.
    Evidence is what should lead to a conclusion not the other way round.
    Granted intuition may lead to a correct conclusion, but not infallibly (or reliably) so.
    BTW the word elicit.
    Citation needed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,914
    You made the assertions. The onus is on you to proved the citations requested. That How discussion works
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibu View Post
    Citation needed.
    For what?
    YOU made a claim: back it up.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Ibu
    Ibu is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    13
    Let me see. philosophy sub forum - check
    Thread title - intuition in philosophy - check
    citation requested - check

    To whom it may concern (part 0ne):

    There’s a third way of knowing, though, that needs no such justification: intuition. In fact, this way of knowing is so foundational that justification is impossible. That’s because knowledge by intuition is not gained by following a series of facts or a line of reasoning to a conclusion. Instead, we know intuitional truth simply by the process of introspection and immediate awareness.
    When I use the word 'intuition,' I mean something specific. I don’t mean female intuition, or a policeman’s hunch, or an experienced stockbroker’s sense that the market is headed for a plunge. Each of these is a type of a specialized insight into a circumstance based on prior experience.
    The kind of intuition I have in mind is immediate and direct, what the Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes as "immediate knowledge of the truth of a proposition, where ‘immediate’ means ‘not preceded by inference.’"
    Intuitional truth doesn’t require a defense—a justification of the steps that brought one to this knowledge—because this kind of truth isn’t a result of reasoning by steps to a conclusion. It’s an obvious truth that no rational person who understands the nature of the issue would deny.[https://www.bethinking.org/morality/...way-of-knowing
    ~ ~
    This article builds on two previous research projects in which we were trying to establish intuition as a valid form of knowledge. In the first case (Dörfler et al., 2010a) we examined the nature of personal knowledge to identify different knowledge types. We started from Ryle’s (1949) distinction of ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’, to which we added three further types, ‘why’, ‘what’ and ‘it’. We concluded that both the ‘know why’ and the ‘know what’ belong to intuition. In the second case we surveyed the literature and identified a set of six features which define intuitive knowledge. (Dörfler and Ackermann, 2011) These six features of intuition resemble closely those of others (cf. Kahneman, 2003: 698; Sadler-Smith, 2008: 13). Three of these apply to the process of intuiting and three to the outcome of such a process, the intuitive knowledge. Intuiting is rapid (often labelled instantaneous), spontaneous (does not require effort and cannot be deliberately controlled) and alogical (meaning that it does not necessarily contradict the rules of logic but does not follow them either). The outcome of the intuitive process is tacit (in that the intuitives cannot give account of how they arrived at the results), holistic (also often called gestalt, as it is concerned with the totality of a situation rather than parts of it), and the intuitor feels confident about their intuition (with no apparent reason in terms of evidence). Alongside this process of searching for the features of intuition, we have recognized that all the reports, whether academic or practitioner, from a variety of fields, including management, psychology and philosophy as well as reports from artists and scientists from diverse fields, mention two major areas in which intuition is used: namely decision taking and creative problem solving. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...50507611434686

    ~ ~

    Intuition therefore is a kind of experience, and indeed Bergson himself calls his thought “the true empiricism” (The Creative Mind, p. 175). What sort of experience? In the opening pages of “Introduction to Metaphysics,” he calls intuition sympathy (The Creative Mind, p. 159). As we have seen from our discussion of multiplicity in Time and Free Will, sympathy consists in putting ourselves in the place of others. Bergsonian intuition then consists in entering into the thing, rather than going around it from the outside. This “entering into,” for Bergson, gives us absolute knowledge. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/
    ~ ~
    The third defensible decision-making tool (along with tradition/habit and experimentation) was intuition. Our lack of understanding about intuition makes it both difficult to trust and difficult to prove that it can't be perfected. The phenomena we call "common-sense", "sensibility", "sixth-sense", "inspiration", "gut-feeling" and "business instinct" (etc.), may all be the same thing. Likewise, what we call "intuition" may actually be more than one phenomena. Each instance of "intuition" could involve any of a number of thought processes, some reliable and others not. I'll try to use this fact to prove that all subconscious reasoning, including intuition, must always be somewhat unreliable.
    At the same time, it seems likely that at least one of the procedures we classify as "intuition" would be a subconscious application of predictive deduction. If so, and if predictive deduction works, then intuition may be better than chance, even regarding cases that would foil tradition and experimentation. Since that appears to be the case, the limited success of intuition (unreliable, but better than chance) provides an extra reason to trust predictive deduction; if we deny that predictive deduction works, then some of the successes of intuition would be unexplained.
    http://philosophy.wisc.edu/lang/pd/pd11.htm#intuition
    ~ ~
    Science does not have a theory that explains or predicts the characteristics of intuition, and yet, many great scientific discoveries relied heavily on intuitive insights. The connections between intellect and intuition are one of the great mysteries of our universe.
    Isaac Newton supposedly watched an apple fall from a tree and suddenly connected its motion as being caused by the same universal gravitational force that governs the moon's attraction to the earth. John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, said "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted."
    http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue19/Physics...
    ~ ~
    Steve Jobs reflects in Walter Isaacson's much-discussed biography of him, one of the 11 best biographies and memoirs of 2011:
    The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
    Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

    ~ ~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Ibu
    Ibu is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    13
    Part two

    In recent years neuroscience has made great strides in explaining how flashes of insight work. We find reference to flashes of insight as well in a variety of older fields that seek to explain how good ideas for action happen. They appear in Asian philosophy, classical military strategy, business strategy, the history of science, and the newer field of cognitive psychology. By pulling together these various sources, we are able to arrive at a modern discipline that puts flashes of insight at the center of a philosophy of action across all fields of human endeavor.

    I call this new discipline strategic intuition. It is very different from ordinary intuition, like vague hunches or gut instinct. Ordinary intuition is a form of emotion: feeling, not thinking. Strategic intuition is the opposite: it’s thinking, not feeling. A flash of insight cuts through the fog of your mind with a clear, shining thought. You might feel elated right after, but the thought itself is sharp in your mind. That’s why it excites you: at last you see clearly what to do.
    http://columbiapress.typepad.com/strategic_in...

    ~~~~

    Although intuitions may often lead to suboptimal decisions, it is still possible that intuitions are sometimes as good or better than judgments derived from deliberation. This quality of intuitions is not necessarily a default circumstance due to deliberative strategies falling short when overused (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Schooler, Ohlson, & Brooks, 1993; Wilson & Brekke, 1994), but rather may be the result of the structural properties of intuition once it is considered in its proper information processing context.
    http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Intuition.pdf
    ~ ~
    http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5360
    There’s a third way of knowing, though, that needs no such justification: intuition. In fact, this way of knowing is so foundational that justification is impossible. That’s because knowledge by intuition is not gained by following a series of facts or a line of reasoning to a conclusion. Instead, we know intuitional truth simply by the process of introspection and immediate awareness.
    When I use the word “intuition,” I mean something specific. I don’t mean female intuition, or a policeman’s hunch, or an experienced stockbroker’s sense that the market is headed for a plunge. Each of these is a type of a specialized insight into a circumstance based on prior experience.
    The kind of intuition I have in mind is immediate and direct, what the Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes as “immediate knowledge of the truth of a proposition, where ‘immediate’ means ‘not preceded by inference.’“ [1]
    Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was referring to this kind of knowledge when he wrote, “A truth can come into the mind in two ways, namely as known in itself, and as known through another. What is known in itself is like a principle, and is perceived immediately by the mind....It is a firm and easy quality of mind which sees into principles.” [2]
    Philosophers call this kind of knowing “a priori” knowledge (literally, “from what is prior”), knowledge which one has prior to sense experience. University of Mississippi ethicist Louis Pojman gives this example: “If John is taller than Mary and Tom is taller than John, Tom is taller than Mary.” He writes:
    You do not have to know John, Tom, or Mary. You don’t even have to know whether they exist or, if they do, how tall they are in order to know that this proposition is true. You need only whatever experience is necessary to understand the concepts involved, such as ‘being taller than.’ To believe this proposition a priori [i.e., know before sense experience], one need only consider it. No particular experience—perceptual, testimonial, memorial, or introspective--is necessary. [3]
    Intuitional truth doesn’t require a defense—a justification of the steps that brought one to this knowledge--because this kind of truth isn’t a result of reasoning by steps to a conclusion. It’s an obvious truth that no rational person who understands the nature of the issue would deny.

    Intuition in mathematical proofs is inseparably connected with the originality of
    mathematical thinking, with creativity while proving. Modern usage of the term
    “intuition” originates from Descartes. Russian mathematician Steklov (1923) stated
    that “the method of discovery and invention is the same for all, one and the same
    intuition , because nobody discovers anything with the help of logic; a syllogism may
    lead other people to the agreement with that or other proof known before, but as a
    tool of invention it is useless… But the heart of the matter is that even in simple cases
    it is impossible to logically explain all the stages of proof. In invention of practically
    every step of proof it is intuition that matters and not logic; intuition is hig her than
    any logic”. Independent proofs, thus, can be divided into proofs where intuition is
    present (the so-called intuitive proofs), and the proofs which will be called logical
    proofs, i.e. proofs made only with the help of logic, in other words proofs where one
    uses the method known to a pupil and leading to a purpose though not demanding to
    put forward new ideas, while the proofs with the use of intuition are necessarily
    connected with the presence of originality in the ideas proposed by a pupil.
    http://www.lettredelapreuve.it/CERME...Yevdokimov.pdf
    ~ ~
    Intuition as a source of knowledge seems to be the antithesis of the scientific method. It is a form of knowledge that seems to come from within and requires no experimentation. Many people dismiss it as unreliable, and it often can be. But sometimes, given the test of time and in the appropriate situation, if we act on this type of knowledge, it can and has turned out to be accurate.
    Intuition as a source of knowledge > Rational Worldview
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Ibu
    Ibu is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    You made the assertions. The onus is on you to proved the citations requested. That How discussion works
    This claim was made:
    "Intuition may provide insight but it doesn't reliably solve problems on its own."

    I would like to see some citations. You know - I showed mine, now show yours (as in the other poster).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibu View Post
    There’s a third way of knowing, though, that needs no such justification: intuition.
    So knowledge isn't justified true belief?

    Each of these is a type of a specialized insight into a circumstance based on prior experience.
    And those cases where the intuition turns out to be wrong, what happens then?

    Intuitional truth doesn’t require a defense—a justification of the steps that brought one to this knowledge—because this kind of truth isn’t a result of reasoning by steps to a conclusion.
    Right, so what happens if your intuition varies from mine? Which of us is correct?

    Except he also says: Math is obvious because of our intuition. As long as one knows what the symbols in the equation 2 + 2 = 4 represent—the numerals and the mathematical signs—a moment’s reflection shows that the truth of the equation is self-evident.
    Whereas the fact is that maths requires 2+2=4 to be proven (and it has done so).

    This “entering into,” for Bergson, gives us absolute knowledge.
    And the article goes on to state "intuition never gives us absolute knowledge".

    The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world...
    THIS is the part I asked for a citation for.

    As for
    This claim was made:
    "Intuition may provide insight but it doesn't reliably solve problems on its own."

    I would like to see some citations. You know - I showed mine, now show yours (as in the other poster).
    Source. Source. Source. (Although I only needed one example of a failure of intuition to show that it's not infallible.
    Conversely: are you assuming/ claiming that intuition is infallible? (In which case I'd like corroboration for that).
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; December 15th, 2018 at 04:11 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexspits View Post
    Knowledge is, well, knowledge; it has nothing to do with belief.
    Actually justified true belief is pretty much the accepted definition of knowledge (here and here for example) although there is some dispute (here).
    Intuition fails as knowledge because it's (initially at least) "revealed" rather than "justified".
    I’m sure I covered this “JTB” during one of the obligatory, first-year philosophy classes in university; but it has been many years since then.


    I always considered the notion that having a belief that something is the case and having the knowledge that it is were mutually exclusive states. Admittedly if I’m looking at a coin in a box and say: “I know there is a coin in that box, but I don’t believe there is one”, that would be odd. However to me; it seems equally odd to say “I know the coin is there and I also believe that it is”.


    Anyway, I will eventually dig deeper into those pages you referenced. Thank you for directing me toward them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,268
    Maybe doesn't work for coins in boxes (unless one were seriously delusional) but how about global warming?
    Some people have seen the data, which is justified, and true (as far as can be ascertained), but they simply don't believe it. That would mean they don't know that GW is taking place.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Ibu
    Ibu is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    13
    This claim was made:
    "Intuition may provide insight but it doesn't reliably solve problems on its own."

    I would like to see some citations. You know - I showed mine, now show yours (as in the other poster).


    Source. Source. Source. (Although I only needed one example of a failure of intuition to show that it's not infallible.
    Conversely: are you assuming/ claiming that intuition is infallible? (In which case I'd like corroboration for that).
    The SM is not in fallible. No method of establishing knowledge is infallible.
    Those who perform the process of Science depend on the SM for good reason. Certainly it has had many problems over the years. The golden years have come and gone, and may return. It has been called into question in recent decades, but of course it is operator error. A tool is only as good the craftsnam.

    Even properly applied it has its limitations. Improperly applied, well, limitations are the least of its problems.

    Even the most ardent supports of intuition as a problem solver would rely on rational methods as a first effort, the 'faithful servant ' as Einstein said.

    The OP does not ask "What is the role of intuition in Science?" That would require a different answer. Philosophers do rely on critical thinking - they invented it. They do not rely the SM, for good reason. As I said, the SM has its limits. Many of lifes problems receive no help from the SM.

    No one I know about advocates for intuition to the exclusion of all other methods, especially not scientists. Not even as a primary method.

    You do seem to imply that intuition should be discarded in favor of infallible methods, but I doubt that is your intention. If I am mistaken, please say so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Ibu
    Ibu is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    13
    So knowledge isn't justified true belief?


    I do not always agree 100% with my references.
    I would explain it differently. Clearly the author advocates for intuition as a path to knowledge.
    It is its own justification. It has been used successfully in the past, and the author explains why. His position is - 'intuition is its own justification'. That is how I would explain his position.

    When we experience something, and 'know' it happened, that is the justification.
    In some cases (I spent the night on a UFO.), a rational person wants further justification.
    Other times (My friend and I went to the movies last night.) no further justification is needed.

    Sometimes justification or not, the belief is false, accepted to be knowledge, but fails the requirements because it is not a true belief.
    This happens in Science, by those who claim to use the SM. Not always, but sometimes. It is part and parcel with 'doing science'.

    'We accept such and such as scientific fact, however if someone demonstrates it is a false belief, we will rewrite the textbooks.' That is the official party line.

    It is the nature of the human mind that from time to time it will have beliefs that are false, dispite best efforts. Scientists of the highest caliber are no exception.




    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Maybe doesn't work for coins in boxes (unless one were seriously delusional) but how about global warming?
    Some people have seen the data, which is justified, and true (as far as can be ascertained), but they simply don't believe it. That would mean they don't know that GW is taking place.
    Yes, clearly they would not know GW is taking place. I think I’m stymied by what happens once I accept the evidence: The belief factor seems to be discarded like a used exoskeleton. I become like a computer that takes stored information about the world and uses it in some recipe. There doesn’t seem to be any question of belief. It’s “automatic”. I suppose one might say I’m just taking the belief’s persistence for granted, but that doesn’t ring quite true either. Anyway, interesting topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibu View Post
    The SM is not in fallible.
    That wasn't claimed. But nice diversion...

    Inane waffle deleted
    You do seem to imply that intuition should be discarded in favor of infallible methods, but I doubt that is your intention.
    Perhaps you should learn to read AND comprehend.
    No such implication was made (or intended).
    YOU asked for citations that intuition isn't always reliable/ isn't infallible: you have been given those.
    Do you agree or disagree?
    If you disagree then what is your basis?

    The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world...
    Still waiting for a source to support this claim.

    (I spent the night on a UFO.)
    I doubt that. (Unless you're using it in the very limited sense of you couldn't identify it).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,940
    I guess it's reasonable to assume that our personal philosophies (and world outlook) comes from intuition, but much of intuition seems to stem from experience. Then, we become biased. Intuition sometimes seems closely tied to biases, in a way. Hard to concretely say which comes first...intuition or bias? Egg or chicken?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Intuition
    By granpa in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 6th, 2014, 05:09 PM
  2. Meaning of intuition?
    By jacate in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2013, 12:51 AM
  3. Review on "Divine Intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God"
    By peterk301 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 4th, 2011, 01:29 PM
  4. What does philosophy do?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: October 30th, 2009, 09:29 AM
  5. That’s philosophy for ya!
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 30th, 2009, 09:25 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •