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An individual has been described by a neighbor as follows: "Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with little interest in people or in the world of reality.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.