Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22

# Arguments for & against Intuition

 Posts: 67 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AMPosted: 2 years agoHey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates**** The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
 Posts: 6,660 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 8:38:21 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.Intuition ain't the only thing to justify atheism or theism.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?I didn't understand anything ..... :P :("Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass http://gotejas.com...
 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 1:53:48 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.CM, thank you very much for this topic, and for the invitation to contribute to it. I think it's very interesting.I think I'd like to start in a place other than philosophical logic though, and sketch an idea that might help. It may look a bit Coherentist at first, but it might not too.It seems to me that knowledge -- which I'll describe in practical terms as a body of ideas held to be reliable -- is only useful in the extent to which it informs and contextualises reliable decisions. So propositions have a prospective value which is our anticipated use for them, and a realised value, which is our evaluation of how much we've used them, and how well they've worked.So we can say that our realised value is based on experience and critical thought, while our prospective value is based on experience and imagination (which I think is the same thing you've called intuition, CM, but here I've broken it down a bit.)One of the issues I see between theists and atheists is that theists adhere to metaphysical propositions which they feel have high prospective value; while atheists tend to reject propositions with low realised value. An area of hot contention between theists and atheists is often the field of emerging sciences, in which some theists argue that the prospective value of theism will surely be realised in new scientific discoveries -- in fact some insist that science cannot progress further without theism -- while atheists point out that the realised value of theological predictions has historically been low and remained static, while the realised value of scientific predictions has been high and incrementally improving, and that science has no use for theology at all.You made the epistemological validity of logic central to the question, CM, and I'd like to touch that briefly too.As far back as Aristotle, philosophical logicians have portrayed logic as a means of demonstrating truth, but I don't think it is. I think it's a means for assuring coherence, and making epistemology accountable.By that I mean, logic seeks to demonstrate to anyone (oneself or others) how propositions connect with predictions, decisions and outcomes, and when predictions are in error, logic helps us identify what went wrong. Logic is central to the scientific method, for example. Without it we couldn't evaluate a single experiment.That doesn't make logic a reliable realiser of prospective value -- because our experiences may be inadequate, or our assumptions may be wrong, or incoherent. Moreover, science in particular and human thought in general, depend as much on experience and imagination as on logic. But the accountability of logic helps one pick apart failures, and helps experience validate and verify imagination. So, when built on sound experience, it's a strong bridge between anticipation and reflection.But logic only works to make people accountable to one another if they share experience, have a similar approach to critical thought, and seek to build an accountable bridge between anticipation and reflection in the first place. We can see in the Religion forum members who have no interest in critical thought, or who prefer to speak of prospective value as though it has already been realised or is imminently being realised, and I have yet to see a conversation with them in which logic means 'accountability to others'.So as I said, this sketch may sound a bit coherentist, and I'm aware of Russell's objection to coherentism: that anything is coheres with unsound assumptions. However, the notion of trying to make anticipation and realisation coherent grounds logic in objectivity -- if one experiences a coherent world, and finds value in accountability and experiential validation.Not everyone does, but those who do can easily agree on it, and I suspect that they're the ones who find most use in logic and critical thought.I hope that may be of interest and use.
 Posts: 1,694 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 1:54:15 PMPosted: 2 years agoMaking Critical Thinking Intuitive: Using Drama, Examples, and ImagesTeaching For Intuitive UnderstandingThe meaning of "intuitive" we are using in this chapter makes no reference to a mysterious power of the mind, but rather to the phenomenon of "quick and ready insight" (Webster"s New Collegiate Dictionary). This sense of the word is connected to the everyday fact that we can learn concepts at various levels of depth. When, for example, we memorize an abstract definition of a word and do not learn how to apply it effectively in a wide variety of situations, we end up without an intuitive foundation for our understanding. We lack the insight, in other words, into how, when, and why it applies. Children may know that the word "democracy" means "a government in which the people rule", but may not be able to tell whether they are behaving "democratically" on the playground. They may know what the word "cruel" means, but they may not recognize that they are being cruel in mocking a handicapped student.Helping students to develop critical thinking intuitions is, then, helping them gain the practical insights necessary for a quick and ready application of concepts to cases in a large array of circumstances.We want critical thinking principles to be "intuitive" to our students in the sense that we want those principles ready and available in their minds for immediate translation into their everyday thought and experience. We base this goal on the assumption that concepts and ideas are truly understood only when we can effectively and insightfully use them in a wide range of circumstances, only when we have mastered their use to the point of spontaneous application.https://www.criticalthinking.org...~~Bergson, the philosopher of intuitionism and of creative evolution, conceives Reality as a vital impetus, an elan vital, whose essence is evolution and development. The elan vital is a growing and flowing process, not a static existence which admits of no change whatsoever. Logic and science, intellect and mechanism cannot fathom the depths of the vital impetus which is the basis of all life. There is change and evolution everywhere, nothing merely is. All existence is a flux of becoming, moving and growing, a succession of states which never rest where they are. The intellect works mechanistically and constructs rigid rules and systems which cannot accommodate the rolling evolution of Reality. There can be no enduring substance in the river of life. Everything is changing, goes beyond itself. We can never get immutable things anywhere in the universe. Even consciousness is not unchangeable. It is a living, moving, growing and evolving process. Consciousness is the essence of the elan vital which is the great Reality. It is impossible to know Reality through logic and science. It is known only in intuition which is a direct vision and experience transcending intellectual processes and scientific observations and reasonings. The elan vital is a creative spirit which defies the attempts of the mathematical manner of approaches to it, and demands a deeper sympathy and feeling which will enter into its very essence. In intuition we comprehend the truth of things as a whole, as a complete process of the dynamic life of the spiritual consciousness. Instinct is nearer to intuition than is intellect. Intuition is instinct evolved, ennobled and become disinterested and self-conscious. Instinct, when not directed to action, but centred in knowledge, becomes intuition. Intuition has nothing of the mechanistic and static operations of the logical and the scientific intellect. Intellect is the action of consciousness on dead matter, and so it cannot enter the spirit of life. Any true philosophy should, therefore, energise and transform the conclusion of the intellect with the immediate apprehensions of intuition. Reality has to be lived, not merely understood.http://www.swami-krishnananda.org...
 Posts: 1,694 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 2:43:40 PMPosted: 2 years agoReal intuition (as opposed to "women"s intuition") springs up from a bedrock of inquiry and thought.Some problems are well beyond logic, or even reasoning.The mind puts itself to the task of problem solving, and despite great efforts, comes up empty.Reasoned solutions, just do not present themselves.Intuition leaps over logic and reason, to an "immediate" solution. I say immediate, but that is after weeks or months in consideration of a solution to a problem.It is a non-rational process, but not an irrational process.In most cases once an intuitive solution has presented itself, it can be verified by rational and more traditional process. This is how mathematicians, Einstein, and jobs used it.It is sometime thought that "intuition" is merely a "snap judgment" that happens to be true, but this is not what proponents mean by an intuitive process.
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 9:45:04 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?Our intuitions are at least in part formed by our everyday experiences and we apply these formed intuitions to non everyday experiences and just assume it all works the same, when this may not be the case and thus get a false result.Where our own intuitions take us have being shown later on to be false."Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 1,694 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2015 5:47:50 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 5/15/2015 9:45:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?Our intuitions are at least in part formed by our everyday experiences and we apply these formed intuitions to non everyday experiences and just assume it all works the same, when this may not be the case and thus get a false result.Where our own intuitions take us have being shown later on to be false.And the same with logic, reasoning, and the Scientific Method, as explained here:http://www.debate.org...Wait, I know, eventually we get it right - you just have to wait.Guaranteed to be 100% correct, if not the first time, then the second, or third, or fourth, all you have to do is wait.
 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/18/2015 4:43:34 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 5/15/2015 2:43:40 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:Real intuition (as opposed to "women"s intuition") springs up from a bedrock of inquiry and thought.I'm enjoying your posts on this topic, WW. I don't necessarily agree with every item of every point, but am enjoying your perspective.
 Posts: 4,488 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/8/2015 6:21:52 PMPosted: 1 year agoI think that this is one of the great, enduring philosophical questions for which the correct response is "Who cares?"If we all conclude that there is no basis other the finite induction for claiming A = A, then would be stop relying upon it? As a practical matter it is at worst in the same category as the Law of Gravity: it has worked every time so far and we'll continue to use it. We'll keep an open mind, and if circumstance ever arises when it doesn't work, then we'll reconsider it. Meantime, move on to more interesting questions.
 Posts: 67 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/8/2015 6:49:07 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/8/2015 6:21:52 PM, RoyLatham wrote:I think that this is one of the great, enduring philosophical questions for which the correct response is "Who cares?"If we all conclude that there is no basis other the finite induction for claiming A = A, then would be stop relying upon it? As a practical matter it is at worst in the same category as the Law of Gravity: it has worked every time so far and we'll continue to use it. We'll keep an open mind, and if circumstance ever arises when it doesn't work, then we'll reconsider it. Meantime, move on to more interesting questions.Im sure ppl who claim to "know" things probably care. Especially since knowledge is considered justified true belief. Ppl in search of truth, so to speak. No one is against pragmatism here. Ofcourse we all act as if things are a certain way, and though useful which is an appeal to consequences, induction and tautologies doesn't guarantee objective truth.What would you consider a more interesting question? lol****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates**** The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
 Posts: 4,488 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/8/2015 7:05:39 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 6/8/2015 6:49:07 PM, CorieMike wrote:Im sure ppl who claim to "know" things probably care. ...You could take a poll. Ask people if they are interested in a discussion of whether A=A is really true, or whether they would rather do just about anything else. I have no objection to anyone having a hobby, and if it's really interesting to you then that's fine. My advice is that learning to crochet has greater lasting value.It's along the Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow. The Buddha was asked if go exists and answered, "If you were shot by a poisoned arrow, would you refuse to remove it until you knew who shot it?" In other words, "Don't bother asking."What would you consider a more interesting question? lolIs there free will? How are scientific concepts like mass and time defined? Did the universe have a beginning?