Venn Diagramming This Mess

[Received]

I'll give this a shot, and I'll probably change my mind in half an hour (see attachment). Brief explanation:

• Science is the smallest sphere, but provides probably the most certainty with what we can know about things.
  
• Outside that is reason, which can work with conclusions from science, but also from experiences and intuitions (a priori truth).
  
• Outside that is experience, which stands for what it basically says (a posteriori truth).
  
• Outside that is intuition, which to me is the same as axiomatic or self-evident truths. What Bertrand Russell called "instinctive beliefs".

 

[Eudaimonist]

No red flags raise for me right away.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

I'll give this a shot, and I'll probably change my mind in half an hour (see attachment). Brief explanation:

• Science is the smallest sphere, but provides probably the most certainty with what we can know about things.
  
• Outside that is reason, which can work with conclusions from science, but also from experiences and intuitions (a priori truth).
  
• Outside that is experience, which stands for what it basically says (a posteriori truth).
  
• Outside that is intuition, which to me is the same as axiomatic or self-evident truths. What Bertrand Russell called "instinctive beliefs".

I would think intuition can vary widely, based on each person's own unique psychological needs and this is where this can go off in a million different directions.

Has anyone ever wondered why some cling to conspiracy theories and work tirelessly to find any tidbit of evidence to support their claim? Take for example, the folks who believe 9/11 was supported by the government, explosive charges brought down the world trade center buildings etc. etc.

These folks are following their "intuition" to selectively ignore the boatloads of evidence that goes against their conspiracy belief and using confirmation bias to selectively only give value to any scrap of information that would support their belief. Cognitive dissonance becomes dominant in these people and it is a vicious cycle they just won't ever surrender. Why? Because I believe they have psychological needs that drive them this direction.

 

[Received]

I would think intuition can vary widely, based on each person's own unique psychological needs and this is where this can go off in a million different directions.

Has anyone ever wondered why some cling to conspiracy theories and work tirelessly to find any tidbit of evidence to support their claim? Take for example, the folks who believe 9/11 was supported by the government, explosive charges brought down the world trade center buildings etc. etc.

These folks are following their "intuition" to selectively ignore the boatloads of evidence that goes against their conspiracy belief and using confirmation bias to selectively only give value to any scrap of information that would support their belief. Cognitive dissonance becomes dominant in these people and it is a vicious cycle they just won't ever surrender. Why? Because I believe they have psychological needs that drive them this direction.

Oh, totally. I guess if you're using nerd psychometric terms, you could say that intuition has low interrater reliability and low validity, even though it's broader than science, which has much higher IR and validity. Intuition has the higher likelihood for batsh*t crazy but also is the basis of the other stuff within it (experience, reason, science). You have more freedom with intuition, which IMO is why we need to use the other spheres as much as possible as well. But that still leaves a lot of room exclusive to intuition that the other circles don't contain.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to gather from this. Is it simply the larger the circle, the less reliable the source of knowledge is? If so, I'd probably swap reason with experience. Sure, personal experience is known to be unreliable, but unlike pure reason, at least it is somewhat grounded in reality.

But that just highlights the problem here - you're mixing and matching different categories. Personal experience is a [fairly unreliable] source of evidence for both reason and science to munch on. Intuition can be a starting point for the same. But why would that put the latter two outside the former? And then you'd have to include things like statistically rigorous objective observation, and I have no idea where that would fit.

Add in the problem reason can work on stuff outside of our experience or intuition - so the latter two aren't a proper superset of it. And certainly results from science can be unintuitive, so bits of science have to be outside intuition.

Again, I'm unsure what you're comparing here. First rule of any chart - label what you're graphing.

 

[saffron park]

There should mathematics or some sort of symbolic logic with a higher level of certainty than science, though it really isn't a part of science

 

[redblue22]

um, no.

.

 

[saffron park]

um, no.

.

Is that for me, the OP or someone else?

 

[redblue22]

the op.

.

 

[Received]

I'm crushed.

 

[quatona]

I'll give this a shot, and I'll probably change my mind in half an hour (see attachment). Brief explanation:

• Science is the smallest sphere, but provides probably the most certainty with what we can know about things.
• Outside that is reason, which can work with conclusions from science, but also from experiences and intuitions (a priori truth).
• Outside that is experience, which stands for what it basically says (a posteriori truth).
• Outside that is intuition, which to me is the same as axiomatic or self-evident truths. What Bertrand Russell called "instinctive beliefs".

1. Not sure what "outside that" is supposed to tell me in this context.
2. If those four accesses would be ordered in the opposite way (or in actually any other order) the diagram would make as much or as little sense to me.
3. I guess a lot depends on the question that is being discussed.
4. I think the equation intuitive=axiomatic=self-evident is too sloppy.
E.g while it is inescapable that an axiom must be at the core of our epistemological system (for instance: "logic mustn´t be violated"), appealing to your intuition when it comes to a specific issue is a completely different thing.

The problem is: We are either arguing circularly (e.g. "intuition tells me that intuition should be our guide" or "reason tells me that reason should be our guide") or inconsistently ("intuition tells me that reason should be our guide" or vice versa). I really don´t see how holding this problem against one particular approach is a good idea, since it will slap back at you immediately.

Finally, you can´t have it both ways. It appears that you want a discussion based upon reason and logic but you want to keep the opportunity to appeal to your intuition as overriding reason and logic whenever it suits you. IOW:
What do you want to be the basis for our conversations here?
Reason and logic? OK.
Our intuitions? Ok as well - but then an appeal to my intuition ("My intuition tells me you have it wrong") should suffice for a response.

 

[Received]

Most basically I'm saying that there are different layers of standards we use to determine truth: science, reason, experience, intuition. I'm saying in a sense that intuition is the most fundamental, given that intuition is needed to validate each and every moment we use any standard -- validate in the sense of "ding! This is okay!" I look outside and see a tree -- "ding! That's a tree!" as opposed to an endless philosophical chase of whether or not the tree really exists. Another step: I use reasoning in an argument and "ding!" there goes intuition again validating that reasoning is good and well and makes sense, so I don't have to go into an infinite Cartesian loop trying to see if it does or not by any other useless means.

And intuition is also fundamentally different than these other standards, given that these other standards are validated or based in intuition, whereas intuition stands by itself. But maybe it's not possible for intuition to stand by itself apart from experience?

 

[Received]

4. I think the equation intuitive=axiomatic=self-evident is too sloppy.
E.g while it is inescapable that an axiom must be at the core of our epistemological system (for instance: "logic mustn´t be violated"), appealing to your intuition when it comes to a specific issue is a completely different thing.

Yeah, now we're defining terms, but I'd be happy to substitute "axiom" or any other term for "intuition" here.

The problem is: We are either arguing circularly (e.g. "intuition tells me that intuition should be our guide" or "reason tells me that reason should be our guide") or inconsistently ("intuition tells me that reason should be our guide" or vice versa). I really don´t see how holding this problem against one particular approach is a good idea, since it will slap back at you immediately.

Tell me more please.

Finally, you can´t have it both ways. It appears that you want a discussion based upon reason and logic but you want to keep the opportunity to appeal to your intuition as overriding reason and logic whenever it suits you. IOW:
What do you want to be the basis for our conversations here?
Reason and logic? OK.
Our intuitions? Ok as well - but then an appeal to my intuition ("My intuition tells me you have it wrong") should suffice for a response.

Yeah, but that's assuming you're using intuition in a totally willy nilly way. I'm not saying that you can just arbitrarily say "intuition sez!" just because. You can't even do this without a bad conscience anyways. Now, you can do this to a person and the person can know that you're doing this without forcing you to open up and be honest. But that's just the nature of individual freedom, isn't it? We can all be jerks about anything if we want to.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, now we're defining terms, but I'd be happy to substitute "axiom" or any other term for "intuition" here.





Tell me more please.



Yeah, but that's assuming you're using intuition in a totally willy nilly way. I'm not saying that you can just arbitrarily say "intuition sez!" just because. You can't even do this without a bad conscience anyways. Now, you can do this to a person and the person can know that you're doing this without forcing you to open up and be honest. But that's just the nature of individual freedom, isn't it? We can all be jerks about anything if we want to.

How does one know if they are using their intuition in a "nilly willy" fashion?

 

[Received]

By not intentionally behaving like, "yep, my intuition says it's wrong!" when they know to themselves that they don't believe it to be wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

By not intentionally behaving like, "yep, my intuition says it's wrong!" when they know to themselves that they don't believe it to be wrong.

That type of behavior is much easier for another person to observe than the person portraying the behavior. Especially if they are one who so desperately wants to believe in something, they convince themselves their intuition is smack dab right on.

 

[quatona]

Yeah, now we're defining terms, but I'd be happy to substitute "axiom" or any other term for "intuition" here.

Ok, but this would mean that your entire "intuition"- approach (which seems to be your foremost interest as of lately, and which actually was the keyterm at the beginning) is left behind.

Tell me more please.

What is it you´d like me to expand on? Do you have a specific question concerning this paragraph?

Yeah, but that's assuming you're using intuition in a totally willy nilly way.

What is the opposite of using intuition in a totally nilly willy way, and how do I determine which way I use it? What are the criteria for a non-nilly-willy-use of intuition?

I'm not saying that you can just arbitrarily say "intuition sez!" just because.

That´s why I was neither saying nor meaning anything to the effect of "arbitrarily" or "just because", either.

You can't even do this without a bad conscience anyways. Now, you can do this to a person and the person can know that you're doing this without forcing you to open up and be honest. But that's just the nature of individual freedom, isn't it? We can all be jerks about anything if we want to.

I´m not sure how you managed to read into my post the proposal to pretend an intuitive conviction, to be dishonest, or to be a jerk.

In fact, more often than not I first know "intuitively" that there´s something wrong with an argument, and then it takes some cognitive effort to spot and explain the fallacy. If "my intuition says..." would be a sufficient response to at least you (since that´s what you feel we should rely upon anyway - rather than reason and logic) that would completely change and, first of all, shorten our conversations dramatically.

 

[Received]

That type of behavior is much easier for another person to observe than the person portraying the behavior. Especially if they are one who so desperately wants to believe in something, they convince themselves their intuition is smack dab right on.

So much the worse for them. It's not like being in the wrong is anything advantageous.

 

[Received]

In fact, more often than not I first know "intuitively" that there´s something wrong with an argument, and then it takes some cognitive effort to spot and explain the fallacy. If "my intuition says..." would be a sufficient response to at least you (since that´s what you feel we should rely upon anyway - rather than reason and logic) that would completely change and, first of all, shorten our conversations dramatically.

It's a response like this that points out at least to me that we're really agreeing all along.

More later. Gotta play Super Metroid.

 

[quatona]

So much the worse for them. It's not like being in the wrong is anything advantageous.

It needn´t be disadvantageous, though, (especially in questions that are practically irrelevant), and it even can be advantageous (depending on your priorities).

I, for instance, hold, embrace and nurture a firm belief that man is inherently good. Rationally, I am fully aware, that this is complete nonsense (as would be the statement to the contrary) since the question is already nonsense. And I definitely wouldn´t engage in a debate defending this belief. But I hold it dear because it helps my inner peace and balance.

Interestingly, just the other day I visited a friend. She went to great length telling me about her and her friends´ passion for astrology and how they - any time they get to know someone new - try to guess their signs. [ ]
Me: So what´s your success rate? I´d bet it isn´t any better than that of any random one in twelve guesses.
Her: Yes, that´s quite possible since the signs come in all different shapes and forms, and many people are very atypical for their sign.
[:facepalm: ]
Me: Ok, so what´s the point then?
Her: I guess it helps me - whenever people do something to me that hurts or annoys me - to not take it personally...because it keeps me aware that they aren´t completely free to choose their character and ways.