Jim Devine wrote, > of course, contrary to scientistic/positivistic propaganda, intuition is > part of science. What was Einstein, if not intuitive? (I'm told that his > math wasn't very good.) Scientists use their intuition all the time. But > then the products of intution that can't be validated logically or > empirically fall by the wayside.
The first "product" of intuition is intuition of itself. This product cannot be validated by exogenous logical or empirical criteria. I think therefore thinking exists. The indivuated "sumness" of it is far less certain.
