Intuition vs Logic

Intuition isn't free from subjectivity by getting "inside" (whatever that means) an issue. Intuition is merely subconscious inferences being produced based on are past experiences. Because of this, intuition is very unreliable in areas we are inexperienced with (i.e. the Quantum level).

Intuition has failed miserably when it comes to whether the earth is spherical or flat and many other scientific theories (i.e. the basics of Quantum Theory) are counter-intuitive. Intuition only works in places where we have experience and it is incapable of being objective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wow, it is interesting to note that this thread is over 12 months old. Hmmmm....interesting to re-read it.

Since then I have thought of another arguement our sun tanned friend Tarzan could ask Dr Livingston.
"If my eyes can only see light then how come I can see nothing?"
"When I look up at the moon at night it is true I see light in the sky, but I also see the the void of nothingness betweeen the moon and my self and in all directions around the moon, how is this so?"
How can I see something that is not light?
Does nothingness enter the eye just like you say light does?

Just to add:
Earlier it was joked that possibly the only thing that can be considered as objective to our perception is oblivion or nothingness. Possibly this needs to be taken a little more seriously.

I have a blank piece of paper with out writing on it. I declare: "Hey man, this paper hasn't got any writing on it, got no drawings , in fact nothing on it" Could we all agree that this is the case regardless of interpretive filters and questioning etc?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Intuition does best with those things beyond our observation, which of course means we are not experienced in that area.

Intuition is not appropriate in all situations.


I FAVOR Herni Bergson
"In An Introduction to Metaphysics (1903), Bergson saw that the intuition, the direct apprehension of process, as the discoverer of truth - intuition, not analysis, reveals the real world. Sometimes intuition in Bergson referred to getting bright ideas, sometimes it was the method of philosophy like intellect is of mathematics. His concept of élan vital, "creative impulse" or "living energy," was developed in Creative Evolution, his most famous book. Élan vital is an immaterial force, whose existence cannot be scientifically verified, but it provides the vital impulse that continuously shapes all life."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am a Zen-deist rationalist who accepts intuition as a means of understanding in limited situations.

I see it a primary tool into what might questionably be called the mystical.

I see it as a possible tool in the rational world.
Primarily the mind will be prepared for the intuitive experience. The foundation will be laid, intentionally or otherwise.

None the less, the experience itself will be non-rational when it occurs.

If it is “true”, the rational world will not “prove” it incorrect. (If I intuit a 10,000 year old universe, I have failed.)
Of course the rational world can not validate it, since it is non-rational (irrational).

If a mathematician/scientist is so absorbed in a problem that it is constantly on his mind, and he has examined it from every angle, he may have “gotten into” the problem. Become part of the problem, so to speak, in a Zenish sort of way.
He and the problem become one (more Zen), he is on the inside, and the solution emerges.

There are those who support the intuitive in math and sciences, and I can provide links or discuss.


The question I have to atheists and rationalists who reject intuition is
“How did you decide to accept your belief system?”

 

I'll specify. Objectivity is the minimization of bias. It comes in shades or different "truth values" (as would be said in fuzzy logic). But becoming more objective (less biased) is possible.

Logic itself deals merely with reasons for beliefs (about the factual realm). Therefore, it does not deal with preferences or actions, and being a pure logician would be a preference not a belief (therefore, cannot be analyzed by logic).

 

Intuition isn't "beyond observation". It is based on our observations of the every day world or the world we live in. Intuition is simply memories or rules about how our world works stored up in our subconscious. These rules form the basis for the subconscious mind making subtle inferences. There is nothing metaphysical about it.

 

Well, this thread appeared at the top of the google search for "intuition vs. logic".

 

DRM, Welcome to Sci forums!!

I must admit it is somewhat scarey......hmmmm...maybe not the right word....to know that a thread started ages ago can be listed at the top of a google search.

Any way,

I tend to think of intuition as primarilly the act of analysing how we feel about our world both internal and external. It is the intellectual understanding of how we feel.....Logic could be the rationalisation of that intuition.

How does a young child feel about attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole?
The frustration of failure leading on to the logic necessary for success, maybe...success being in this instance the awareness of futility.

So is it intuition [ feelings ] that leads to the logic [ rational ] that states "Square pegs do not fit in round holes?"

Could it be simply stated that "logic is the rationalisation of our intuition?" [ as mentioned by some one earlier in this thread ]

 

I hold a somewhat similar view, which differs slightly. Intuition is “instinct” or something we feel to be true (because of the subconscious making inferences). Generally, intuition is based on stored up knowledge. This knowledge or beliefs are based on our everyday world. This is why we find it hard to intuit the inside of an atom, it’s not an everyday experience we have.

Now, intuition can act as a reason for an action (i.e. avoiding a shady character, as the women example above illustrates) or a reason for further investigation (i.e. if we have a feeling something might be true, based on intuition, we should apply logical examination to further test whether the given belief is true).

Your given example on the square pegs and round holes may best be understood as an example of induction. If we tried that many times, we could determine that square pegs probably don’t fit into round holes.
I would also recommend checking out this article written by Massimo Pigliucci.

 

I wouldn't say Aristotle wasn't a timeless philosopher. For one thing, his methodological semi-empiricism has been adopted by the scientific method. Many of his concepts in formal logic (simple syllogism) and his examination of the sophists' fallacies are still studied by logicians today. And, despite reaching some inaccurate conclusions, Aristotle’s more realist philosophy (as opposed to Platonic Idealism) is what has motivated many scientists and philosophers.

All that Plato did was give us the concept of a world independent from our senses and sense-data. The way he thought about this, though, severely undermined empirical investigation and put more of an emphasis of arm-chair philosophizing.

 

It certainly seems to be an article I can agree with. Well written and simple in language.

 

”Based on”, certainly. It does not automatically come with observation. It is not attached to observation.
Observation of two seemingly unrelated events might lead to intuition.

If we are concerned with the “why” of things, we can not observe “why”.
I would say observations generally explain “how”, but not “why”.
When obversations fail to explain “why”, it is intuition which can provide answers.
Reason and logic does best with those things which are observed, but not all things can be observed. This is not to say they are impossible to be observed, just that in some situations what might be observed, is not. The realization prompted by intuition might lead to observation which reinforces the validity of the intuition.



From PROOF AND INTUITION, by Michael Detlefsen

"I would like to begin by describing two basic types of epistemic structures, one of which will be called “Intuition Intensive,” the other “Logic Intensive.”

Logic Intensive systems are so-called because of the heavy use they make of perceived connections of content among the propositions which form the content of the various beliefs making up a system.

Intuition Intensive systems, on the other hand, are marked by a general refusal to admit extension of knowledge based merely on considerations of subsumption of content.
On this way of looking at things, epistemic warrant is a relatively “individualistic” affair.
Each proposition demands a warrant tailored to it, and there is relatively scant opportunity for one proposition to borrow its warrant from another (or, equivalently, for one proposition to have its warrant transferred to another).

For our own part, we believe that there are reasons supporting an
Intuition Intensive approach. However, the establishment of such a claim is not the chief aim of this paper. Rather, what we want to do is to show how the distinction between Intuition Intensive and Logic Intensive conceptions of mathematical epistemology is involved in large areas of the debate that has taken place in the philosophy of mathematics, especially in this century."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Normally instinct is engaged to provoke a certain action in a certain situation.
When instinct displays itself as a means to gaining knowledge or understanding, which may or may not lead to a certain actions, we have intuition.
Instinct engages the body, intuition engages the intellect.

The only concern I can find in Pigliucci’s article is that he seems to ignore the fact that intuition is, by any definition I have see, irrational. I would not say intuition and rationality are opposites, but I would say they are complementary. One is not contained in the other, one is not dependent on the other.

Russian mathematician Steklov (1923) stated that
“the method of discovery and invention is the same for all, one and the same intuition , because nobody discovers anything with the help of logic; a syllogism may lead other people to the agreement with that or other proof known before, but as a tool of invention it is useless… But the heart of the matter is that even in simple cases it is impossible to logically explain all the stages of proof. In invention of practically every step of proof it is intuition that matters and not logic; intuition is higher than any logic”. Independent proofs, thus, can be divided into proofs where intuition is present (the so-called intuitive proofs), and the proofs which will be called logical proofs, i.e. proofs made only with the help of logic, in other words proofs where one uses the method known to a pupil and leading to a purpose though not demanding to put forward new ideas, while the proofs with the use of intuition are necessarily connected with the presence of originality in the ideas proposed by a pupil.”

Also, from Hans Welling:
In spite of the fact that intuition is a universally recognized experience, it is poorly studied in psychology in general, and remarkably little has been published about its role in psychotherapy. One of the reasons has probably to do with the strict division that has been made between intuition and reason, to the point that some authors claim that intuition is unscientific (e.g. Bunge, 1962; Weissman, 1987). For those authors who have written extensively about intuition (see e.g. Bastick, 1982; Westcott, 1968), it has proven difficult to go beyond the descriptive approach of this phenomenon, in the sense of explaining the existence of intuition and proposing mechanisms for its functioning. There is no cognitive theory about intuition. In fact, there
isn't even a clear consensus of what phenomena should be classified as intuition.

 

Intuition does, certainly, rely on observations for a framework to make inferences (inductive and abductive). Although it may not be a purely observational task, it does require a fair background of experience with a given field for an "intuition" to be accurate.

 

I'll give some background as well. I would consider myself a physicalist and a moderate empiricist.