But there is no such fact. Knowledge is not a concern of science because science is metaphysically neutral.
@ughaibu -- How do you come to that conclusion? Especially given that science is defined as a method for obtaining knowledge, and especially especially since it works better at it than any other method thought of thus far. Again, the proof of this is right in front of you as you read these words. Your computer is evidence that science works at obtaining knowledge, since if the knowledge obtained by science weren't accurate, your computer wouldn't work. Care to "intuit" your computer on? Perhaps after that you could pray yourself a connection to the internet as well.
Science is the business of constructing theories which include models that allow the scientist to predict probabilities of making specified observations, given certain other specified observations. Thus, science deals with two sets of objects, the abstract relations and uninterpreted variables involved in the models, and the observations. As the models remain the same regardless of their interpretation, they are metaphysically neutral. And as observations are the same for all observers, regardless of metaphysical stance, observations, too, are metaphysically neutral. In order to make claims about knowledge, you'll need to engage in metaphysics.
Be honest. How do you know that "that science is the best tool for acquiring knowledge, (that would be you). I've accepted this fact based on the track record of success that science has, a track record which is in evidence for you right now, as you read these words.", except, that you intuited that fact. You will tell me you 'reasoned it out', so to speak. So I will ask how you know that 'reasoning it out' is the correct method to arrive at Truth. And you will reply something like "It has a good track record." And I will say, "So what?" You believe what you believe, because you believe it. If you tell me reason and logic alone rule your life, so tht you can see Truth, I will say you have a good intuitive motive there. But I disagree with it regardless.
Would you expand on the bold part, please. I believe I know what you mean, and agree, but I would have to be assuming some things. I'd rather hear more details, and not have to assume. There are meanngs that could apply, that I would not agree with.
I can only speak from personal experience but intuition seems like a ballpark estimate. It isn't rational because it's used for general approximations. Logic is a tool we use to understand specific qualities of a problem. We attempt to analyze each individual factor and incorporate them into a comprehensive and usually linear series of demonstrative steps. By its nature, logic must be built from the ground up. There's no room for "skips". While it has the potential to be the most reliable tool, it's also slow and doesn't guarantee results. It all comes down to how the tool is used, and unfortunately it's often used to find patterns in problems where none exist, or is insignificant to the desired solution. Let's say I'm trying to cross a river... it won't get me anywhere to deduct the particle interactions of water. Instead it might be better to just focus on buoyancy (build a boat) or tension (build a bridge), but how do we know what factors are significant to the solution and which aren't without fully comprehending both the problem and solution first? That's where intuition comes in. Intuition is in the same family as logic but attempts to look at the big picture. It isn't concerned with the individual factors instead it attempts to see how the problem "flows" and directs our attention (and as a result our logic) to the most significant factors that we believe will bring about the desired results. It gets us in the general vicinity of the solution and we use logic to verify and refine it into theories. This is why some people build boats, bridges, swing from vines, attempt to swim, look for fallen trees, etc. They all use logic to finalize their solution, but intuition points them in the right direction. Intuition also prevents us from looking for solutions where none exist (or is relatively irrelevant), like attempting to throw mud into the river. Logically, you have enough mud to build a dam but the time and effort required is unnecessary where, intuitively, we know there's better solutions out there (and can later prove it using logic to factoring things in like time and resources). Without intuition, Einstein would never have come up with theory of relativity because there are too many factors involved that he had no real logical comprehension of (time, space, motion etc). It was intuition that drove him and logic forced the rest of us to accept it.
I see intuition yielding understanding, and the rational yielding what I would call knowledge. That seem a bit ambigious, and vague. I'll find a better way to present it in a day or so. Logic and intuition do have similariteis, but I would say more striking differences rather than similarities (re: Intuition is in the same family as logic but attempts to look at the big picture. ) I'll get back when I have more time.
