How does on go about substantiating such a claim? — Wheatley
We definitely have intuitions, I agree. However, the OP is concerned about intuition as a mental faculty.It's no mystery to me that there is such a thing. — Pantagruel
Is that a psychological fact, or speculation?Yes, ,much of everyday human reasoning is fraught with technical difficulties (viz. cognitive biases). So there is some faculty which counterbalances sensory reasoning. — Pantagruel
And have you acquired any knowledge with your "highly-developed intuitive sense"? Perhaps you can give me an example.I personally have always enjoyed a highly-developed intuitive sense. — Pantagruel
I know about the cognitive biases.Cognitive biases are a well-established fact. The vast majority of people reason fallaciously in a wide variety of circumstances. — Pantagruel
That's similar to what I said.Intuition has formed the basis of my professional career in troubleshooting computer systems. For a self-trained engineer, I have enjoyed considerable success. I feel it has guided my studies equally well. I've heard it described as "immerse yourself in your subject matter....and wait." I'd say that's accurate. — Pantagruel
From my understanding, intuitions are developed from experience and practice. Doctors, for example, gain intuitions about medicine by treating patients. My question is, is it necessary to postulate intuition as a mental faculty that allows us to obtain metaphysical knowledge? We all have intuitions in our everyday lives, that is certain. But to go ahead postulating an intuitive mental faculty is surely unwarranted. — Wheatley
Two further technical senses of intuition may be briefly mentioned. One, deriving from Immanuel Kant, is that in which it is understood as referring to the source of all knowledge of matters of fact not based on, or capable of being supported by, observation. — Wheatley
My question is, is it necessary to postulate intuition as a mental faculty that allows us to obtain metaphysical knowledge? — Wheatley
Thoughts? — Wheatley
Then I must be "mind-mindbogglingly arrogant". If I had to choose between a book that contains knowledge and a book that contains somebody's intuitions, I would choose the former. Simply put: it's better to know.People look down on intuition, but it is much more powerful and effective than what we call knowledge. Our intuition is the fundamental basis of our intellect. To not recognize its importance is mind-bogglingly arrogant. — T Clark
How so? If anything, science has introduced doubts about our intuitive ability. Presupposing them then would be counter-productive.: That science makes breakthrough challenging extant intuitions, is sufficient presupposition for them, — Mww
I agree.That which is counter-intuitive doesn’t negate the power of intuition itself, but at most merely some content of it. — Mww
It doesn't seem right to use Kant's system as standard to judge other systems merely on the bases that Kant's system hasn't been disproved. The fact that Kant has never been refuted is just a testament to how hard it is to refute a philosophical position. That being said, I have no reason to accept Kant's philosophy, nor his ideas about intuition.That an old system such as Kant’s has never been proven wrong doesn’t make it correct, just continuously useful, if only against which new systems are judged. — Mww
That an old system such as Kant’s has never been proven wrong doesn’t make it correct, just continuously useful, if only against which new systems are judged.
— Mww
It doesn't seem right to use Kant's system as standard to judge other systems merely on the bases that Kant's system hasn't been disproved. — Wheatley
: That science makes breakthrough challenging extant intuitions, is sufficient presupposition for them,
— Mww
How so? — Wheatley
The fact that Kant has never been refuted is just a testament to how hard it is to refute a philosophical position. — Wheatley
1. Humans have an innate "intuitive" faculty.
2. We can readily rely on this faculty to obtain knowledge.
Objection to 1: The idea that we all possess intuitive faculties is a considerable assumption. How does on go about substantiating such a claim?
Objection to 2: Science often makes discoveries that are counter-intuitive. In fact, history shows us that scientific breakthroughs are made by challenging traditional assumptions and intuitions.
Thoughts? — Wheatley
Philosophers like to point out different ways of acquiring knowledge. There's deductive reasoning, empirical knowledge, and intuition. Mathematicians (as an example) acquire knowledge using deductive reasoning. Scientists gain empirical knowledge by gathering data. And philosophers gather wisdom from their intuition. — Wheatley
This is not wrong, it's just nonsense. As I already pointed out, intuitions are private psychological hunches based on what each of us has already learned. Public scientific discoveries are almost always counterintuitive, otherwise they would have been known to the ancients' intuitions.Objection to 2: Science often makes discoveries that are counter-intuitive. In fact, history shows us that scientific breakthroughs are made by challenging traditional assumptions and intuitions. — Wheatley
I'll reply again. :smile:There is a bug in your reply. — magritte
I wouldn't say "any kind of knowledge". I believe that we all have personal knowledge that is not shared with the public.Intuition is a subjective personal source for suggesting possible beliefs which is far from being a source of any kind of knowledge. Intuitions are deeply psychological, exactly the sort of thing rational philosophy should be distancing itself from. — magritte
Intuitions are not guesses, guesses are guesses. Saying intuitions are guesses would make intuitions interchangeable with guesses. Thus we could stop talking about intuitions and start talking about guessing. I personally do now know exactly what intuition is. It's one of those fuzzy words/concepts.Intuitions are guesses but not raw guesses. For example, mathematical or artistic intuition starts with loading one's mind with everything already known on some narrow topic. Then subconsciously, which means without rational deliberation, testing many combinations of possibilities, even while sleeping, which pop into the conscious mind suddenly with a best fit guess to a problem. The result can remembered and further developed rationally. — magritte
I wouldn't say "dead wrong". I would agree that intuitions are not a contribution to public knowledge.I take it that you agree with me (and Plato) that the assessment of any sort of knowledge based on psychological intuition has to be dead wrong? — magritte
2. We can readily rely on this faculty to obtain knowledge. — Wheatley
Objection to 2: Science often makes discoveries that are counter-intuitive. In fact, history shows us that scientific breakthroughs are made by challenging traditional assumptions and intuitions. — Wheatley
It is nonsense if we assume your definition of intuition.This is not wrong, it's just nonsense. As I already pointed out, intuitions are private psychological hunches based on what each of us has already learned. — magritte
Public scientific discoveries always go against our best guesses and hunches, otherwise, the ancients would have known our science.Public scientific discoveries are almost always counterintuitive, otherwise they would have been known to the ancients' intuitions.
I wouldn't say that the scientific world is totally hidden from our view, The scientific world is right there in front of us. Science only offers us a better and more accurate understanding of the natural world. It is true that science gathers data that were previously inaccessible to ordinary people, but that doesn't imply that science replaces what humans ordinarily believe. Science only adds to public knowledge, it doesn't take anything away from us ordinary people.Science is counterintuitive because the world that scientific instruments measure is different from our inborn naive intuitions of what the world we imagine ought to be. The fault is with our subjective psychological intuitions and not with objective scientific instruments. The scientific world is totally hidden from the naive conceptions of un-instrumented primitives like us.
I don't believe there is an exact definition of "intuition". Dictionaries provide definitions, however, we don't use dictionaries in philosophy.So what exactly is intuition? It is the ability to know something without analytic reasoning, bridging the gap between the conscious and non-conscious parts of our mind." — tim wood
Exactly. It all seems uncertain to me.It seems the sort of thing we all know and understand, but I find when I look more closely, I don't. I know something about odds and "gut feelings" and experience. These all fuzzy. But does it resolve into something definite under the right focus, or is it fuzzy all the way down? — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.