:100:

Science often makes discoveries that are counter-intuitive. — Wheatley

The intellect is no less flawed than the intuition. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. But even better when they work together.

is it fuzzy all the way down? — tim wood
Exactly. It all seems uncertain to me. — Wheatley

In one of the more abstract courses in college math, the prof presented much material in rapid succession with many of the proofs peppered with "it is intuitively obvious that blahblah". After class I admitted that those steps were not intuitively obvious to me and I asked for guidance. He said that those proofs were intuitively obvious to any mathematician and I would see that after a few more math courses.

The picture of intuition I have already presented is the one to be found in some Plato (perhaps the Meno and Theaetetus). According to the SEP, is also the median position to be found in modern philosophy as
S has the intuition that p if and only if S is disposed to believe p
This emphasizes the psychological disposition component of personal belief applicable to epistemology. The advantage is that my nasty reference to many scientific instrumental worlds can be ignored for the sake of argument.

Intuition is a heuristic that is used to make sense of a situation and inform our decisions or opinions. They are based on generalisations biases and previous experiences.
Intuition is more of guessing than "knowing" and a Nobel awarded scientific study showed that statistically our intuition performs really bad. — Nickolasgaspar

You are using generalizations and heuristics to conclude that intuition doesn't work. In other words, you are not being rigorous but relying on "intuition" to dismiss intuition.

lol...Pointing to an work that was awarded by the Nobel comity is not a generalization or heuristics. Maybe you don't understand what a generalization or heuristics are.
You need to study the actual publication or read the impact this study had and still has in our economic theory and applications or read Kahneman's book that analyzes the methods and their conclusions.
Scientific methods do not include heuristics or generalizations in their Descriptive Frameworks.
I understand that you are trying to protect an ideology that might be based solely on intuitive claims but you don't get to accuse science and its methods for using heuristics or generalizations.
Removing those practice WAS the main reason why we came up with science in the first place.

OK dude

You can read all about his awarded study(methodologies and foundings) in his book which for academic reasons( I suppose) is available in PDF format all over the internet for free.
You can also watch his lectures and talks on the subject.
http://dspace.vnbrims.org:13000/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2224/1/Daniel-Kahneman-Thinking-Fast-and-Slow-.pdf

The problem with social science definitions is that they use what is called an operational definition. As far as I am aware, philosophy doesn't use operational definitions.

The picture of intuition I have already presented is the one to be found in some Plato (perhaps the Meno and Theaetetus). According to the SEP, is also the median position to be found in modern philosophy as
S has the intuition that p if and only if S is disposed to believe p — magritte

Okay. I guess we all need to keep in touch with more up-to-date contemporary philosophy.

1. Humans have an innate "intuitive" faculty. 2. We can readily rely on this faculty to obtain knowledge. — Wheatley

Emerson will call it the genius that each of us have, but it is more in relation to an opportunity than something innate. Is it unobjectionable to say we all have different interests, are attracted to different things? We can be drawn into the world (Heidegger). Not that we are the cause of making our will known, our are grasping some knowledge special to us, but in the sense of our knowing our way, which one is ours (or ignoring it). We can make that intelligible not by intention or our meaning, but because of the interests and identities and distinctions and ordinary criteria embedded in our culture and lives--our conformity to it Emerson calls it, or our aversion from it.

To call it a "faculty" is a picture which would lead us to want to know the nature of it, it's source, it's constitution, it's authority, it's power, etc. This sets it up as part of human nature, rather than as part of the human condition, a place we at times find ourselves in.

There seems to be two assumptions made by philosophers here:

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. — Wheatley

An example will perhaps illustrate the difference between intuition and logic:

Say you visit a store to buy some things. You're not paying attention (like all of us) to what you're doing. Picking up a few items you rush back to the clerk at the counter. You absent-mindedly place the items you want to buy on the table. The clerk then scans the items and tells you, without batting an eyelid, "that'll be $3000 sir."

Intuition: You picked up, what?, a maximum of 3 items. To be on the safe side let's make that 5. You remember glancing at the most expensive item you chose and you recall the last time you bought one it was around $20. A back-of-the-envelope calculation (5 × $20 = $100). The clerk has made a mistake or the calculator is broken.

Logic: You ask the clerk to tell you the price of each item. You turn on the calculator app on your phone and do the math. You look at the cashier/clerk, disapprovingly of course, and tell her she's made a mistake.

Intuition: :brow:

Logic: :nerd:

Response to OP. Objection 1 brings a lot of baggage with the words "innate" and "faculty". For example, I do not think the assumption to be that far off when softened to: Humans exhibit an "intuitive", i.e. fast and involuntary mode of cognition from an early stage of development. I am however in agreement with objection 2, probably from the same perspective as @magritte. Knowledge is learned. Intuition can, on occasion, reveal a shortcut to our rational cognition.

Response to thread:

I personally have always enjoyed a highly-developed intuitive sense. — Pantagruel

I hear that cats have fast reactions. Does their physical ability (strength, dexterity, etc.) benefit from this over time?

people assume that they can do meaningful philosophy without the need to be scientifically informed on the subject. — Nickolasgaspar

An uncomfortable truth (full disclosure: I took no more than a single undergrad course). Still, its hard to find people willing to even talk about philosophy... and I guess it's a kind of therapy for some of us. Or just a way to kill time for shut-ins. Maybe we need a new thread: What is the value of this forum? :wink:

The intellect is no less flawed than the intuition. — Miller

The flaw of the intellect is surely its laziness. However, its outputs are statistically more valuable. See, e.g. the work by Kahneman that @Nickolasgaspar;619917 has spoken of.

not being rigorous — Yohan

@Nickolasgaspar;619917 was referencing work which is indeed scientifically rigorous. The book title is actually "Thinking, Fast and Slow". My main criticism is that Kahneman isn't able to pick an audience: the book is both too long and dense for leisure reading, and not technical enough for scientific reference. Still, it's a good travel companion.

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. — magritte

:up:

An example will perhaps illustrate the difference between intuition and logic: — TheMadFool

This has raised more questions for me: you've put the multiplication into "intuition", and it is clearly some very simple maths, but I'm not sure I wouldn't have put it into "logic"/"intellect"... Maybe the divide is not so sharp...

This has raised more questions for me: you've put the multiplication into "intuition", and it is clearly some very simple maths, but I'm not sure I wouldn't have put it into "logic"/"intellect"... Maybe the divide is not so sharp — the affirmation of strife

Intuition seem to be more of an emotion - it feels right/it feels wrong.

Logic - it's right/it's wrong.

That's why I alwats felt/believed that realization (feeling the truth e.g. an equation) is more important than "mere" comprehension

As I'm joining the Kahneman bandwagon on this, I feel it's only fair to give a taste of the limits of intuition:

As you consider the next question, please assume that Steve was selected at random from a representative sample:

An individual has been described by a neighbor as follows: "Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with little interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail." Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?

The resemblance of Steve's personality to that of a stereotypical librarian strikes everyone immediately, but equally relevant statistical considerations are almost always ignored. Did it occur to you that there are more than 20 male farmers for each male librarian in the United States?

As others here have said, it quickly gets into the realm of psychology...

limits of intuition — the affirmation of strife

:up: I had a different opinion up until I read what you wrote!

As you consider the next question, please assume that Steve was selected at random from a representative sample:

An individual has been described by a neighbor as follows: "Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with little interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail." Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?

The resemblance of Steve's personality to that of a stereotypical librarian strikes everyone immediately, but equally relevant statistical considerations are almost always ignored. Did it occur to you that there are more than 20 male farmers for each male librarian in the United States?

Now where did I read that? :chin:

Why are farmers so far down the Hackliste?

Did you know?

Astronomy, science, then math (the rest is history) were all simply byproducts of farming? A farmer should be proud as hell that his profession opened the doors to civilization as we know it. Who would've thought such was the truth? I definitely wouldn't but that's because I wasn't paying attention. :joke:

its outputs are statistically more valuable — the affirmation of strife

The intellect is superior, says the intellect.

Meanwhile god laughs at your plans.

Objection to 1: The idea that we all possess intuitive faculties is a considerable assumption. How does on go about substantiating such a claim? — Wheatley

One could say that this idea is intuitive in and of itself, and if the average, or majority of humanity were to read this text and primarily think yeah, that seems about right, we would all possess an intuitive faculty.

Meanwhile god laughs at your plans. — Miller

If only he could share with me what they were. :smile: For the sake of argument, let us assume this laughing deity exists. Did He create the world intuitively, in your view? I only ask, because someone once said that God does not play dice...

I’d just like to point out that within phenomenology intuition means something quite different than the way it is being defined in the OP.

“Husserl’s brand of intuition has nothing to do with a view of intuitions as mere sensations of a strictly subjective nature with no real objective reference, no matter how strong the sensations are. An intuitive experience is not a revelation of a hitherto hidden reality to a passive consciousness, a sort of mundane annunciation in which one is impregnated with truth without really knowing how.

For Husserl, the concept of intuition is required on both the ontological and epistemological levels in order to ground the concepts of truth and knowledge, and it is nothing more than a generalization of the notion of perception.”(Jairo Da Silva)

Interesting. So what is an example of intuition operating in this way?

I wonder if my above example works for this. You didn't really gain any new revelations from reading it, right? You just "percieved" that Steve was described as a bit of a nerd. And then made some connections with other preconceptions. But maybe Josh has a better example.

Not sure this illustrates what form intuition takes in Husserl's phenomenology which distinguishes it from conventional intuition.

So what is an example of intuition operating in this way? — Tom Storm

The simplest sense impressions; color , sound ,touch sensation, are examples of basic intuitions for Husserl prior to their being synthetically connected into higher order objects.

Meanwhile god laughs at your plans. — Miller

It stopped being funny a long time ago. :grin:

I believe the answer to this problem is that knowledge and intuition have separate and integral functions and should not be viewed in a hierarchy, as if one should always give way to the other.

I think in the context of this thread we can view truth as what is, and knowledge as what we know about what is. So what constitutes knowledge is pre-established, already known, readily proveable facts. Intuition, on the other hand, is more of a quick, short hand assessment of what *appears* to be accurate
.
Most people must draw conclusions in a time and resource constrained environment. This is where intuition really come in handy.Almost everyone admits that neither they nor humanity knows EVERYTHING. So you can say that within any field of knowledge there remains an element of the unknown. That's where "learning" comes in. When one attempts to learn, they must draw upon what they already know (knowledge) while also advancing into what they don't know. Often, when all the facts are not yet known, one must use their intuition to bridge the gap between the unknown and the known, since the known alone is not enough.

Intuition can clearly be improved by knowledge. Look at the example @the affirmation of strife gave earlier

An individual has been described by a neighbor as follows: "Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with little interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail." Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?

The resemblance of Steve's personality to that of a stereotypical librarian strikes everyone immediately, but equally relevant statistical considerations are almost always ignored. Did it occur to you that there are more than 20 male farmers for each male librarian in the United States?

It appears to one's intuition that a librarian would fit Steve's personality better than a farmer. However, one could intuitively know Steve was more likely to be a farmer if they were simply knowledgeable of statistical analysis or knew a lot about psychology.

Now, here is the more subtle part. Just as one's intuition can be improved by their knowledge, one's knowledge can be improved by their intuition. In the example that @TheMadFool gave us,

Say you visit a store to buy some things. You're not paying attention (like all of us) to what you're doing. Picking up a few items you rush back to the clerk at the counter. You absent-mindedly place the items you want to buy on the table. The clerk then scans the items and tells you, without batting an eyelid, "that'll be $3000 sir."

Intuition: You picked up, what?, a maximum of 3 items. To be on the safe side let's make that 5. You remember glancing at the most expensive item you chose and you recall the last time you bought one it was around $20. A back-of-the-envelope calculation (5 × $20 = $100). The clerk has made a mistake or the calculator is broken.

...you use your knowledge (this is how much groceries should cost) to fuel your intuition ($3000 is to much to pay for groceries) to then make more intuitive judgements (this asshole cashier overcharged me!) to then finally come to a "conclusion" (sometimes cashiers overcharge you). That useful conclusion was only reached because you had a very negative gut reaction to a number the cashier gave you. Knowledge only provided the information; your intuition proppeled you into reactions. Intuition is like a less accurate, more fluid knowledge that allows you to react quickly enough to grow and learn in real life situations. Without that ability, you wouldn't encounter as much learning experiences as you otherwise would, and then you wouldn't accrue as much knowledge.

My point is that knowledge and intuition should be used together, and the idea that one is superior to the other is really creating a false dichotomy, a real non-problem.

Sense impressions being given, and from them, comparatively speaking.......

So what is an example of intuition operating in this way?
— Tom Storm

The simplest sense impressions; color , sound ,touch sensation, are examples of basic intuitions for Husserl prior to their being synthetically connected into higher order objects. — Joshs

....what is it that connects?
....connected synthetically, with what?
....connected into what higher order object?
....where does the higher order object reside?
....what is the function of such object?

Quick little one-word answers, or short phrases, would be fine.

....what is it that connects?
....connected synthetically, with what?
....connected into what higher order object?
....where does the higher order object reside?
....what is the function of such object? — Mww

All perceptual experiences are based on associative
synthesis, wherein ‘higher’ senses are constituted out of simpler ones drawn from memory on the basis of likeness and similarity. ‘Real’ spatial objects are concatenations of new sense data, memory and expectations.

Ok. Thanks.

Maybe, try to quite your mind, thoughts, do you get better or lesser intuition ?
Sit with friend in room, his goal is to ask you, do you know that this pen sit on table, (you didnt notice it in concious), you try hard, is maybe answer in the air - intuition ?

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. — Wheatley

But we don't have to choose between those two, we can use both and use both well. In fact we all rely on intuition all the time. Some of better, some worse at specific areas of being intuitive and many experts have excellent intuition. We don't have the luxury of using only knowledge. If we waited for everything to be verified in that way, we could not live. Further in applying knowledge, interpreting knowledge steps in doing this would involve intuition. Or do involve it, I should have said.

My question is, is it necessary to postulate intuition as a mental faculty that allows us to obtain metaphysical knowledge? — Wheatley

Doing so appears to be specifically religiously motivated, as a retrospective (presumably, retroactive) justification for holding a particular religious belief.