In reference to my comment on the normal role of intuition (e.g., Einstein) in science, Ian writes:
>What's the difference between intuition and guess? <
I'm not sure it matters what the difference is.
>What's the difference between intuition and analysis? When does the one process leave off and the
other begin in the dynamics of cognition and emotion?<
there seems to be a dialectical "interpenetration of opposites," in which emotions and cognition condition each other, determining each others' character (within the social context, of course). The same can be said about intuition and analysis. But that doesn't say that all of these are one big mush, so we can jettison logical/empirical analysis, give up trying to separate cognition and analysis from emotion and intuition, and sit back & smoke some weed. We should try to be in touch with our emotions (as we say here in California), but we want our actions and views to be as rational as possible.
> From which of the contrasting and possibly complementary terms/processes do we make the
distinction[s]? And are these differences connected in any way to our
individual and group abilities to perceive/conceive randomness and patterns
within our bodies, societies and space-time?<
I don't understand the above very well. I'd bet that it's easier to deal with such issues if they were stated in concrete terms (with examples) rather than dwelling in abstraction.
Ravi writes:
> i hate rehasing this issue, but i have to point out that scientists will
> be quick to point out that intuition is alright in the 'context of
> discovery' but what makes science 'science' is that rigorous proof is
> required in the 'context of justification'. this claim is quite a
> distance from reality. pkf [Feyerabend?] among others points out the political - the
> desires of the humans carrying out the justification - and theoretical -
> theory-laden'ness of facts - limitations of of this 'context of
> justification' claim.
I have no complaint with this. I just think that using idealized science-style thinking to oppose capitalism (and the Pentagon and the scientific star system, etc.) is going to be more effective than embracing mysticism or whatever the alternative is to science-style thinking.
Carl:
>... At heart I guess I'm just a peasant with a pitchfork eager to storm
Dr. Frankenstein's castle. ...<
but isn't it a mistake to rely on your heart (emotions) as a guide for action? Obviously, emotions can and should play a role, but there must be a role for thinking about the consequences of action and the like (as I'm sure you do). Luckily the Committee on Experimentation with Human Subjects prevents people from doing Frankenstein-type (or Milgrom-type) experiments. The need for such a committee tells us something that we already knew: science should never be the be-all and end-all.
Jim
