(May 2, 2013 at 9:08 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: I have no issue with making an inductive inference using rational intuition. We agree here. I split ways when you call this knowledge. Inductive inference based on such intuition is an effective way to begin a hypothesis, but you have to be careful, not only to what you apply this useful tool to, but also how you qualify your assumption.
I think one of the main issues we are facing here is the limiting nature of human language (verbal or written articulation); I think there are some things that just cannot be communicated from one person another. Normal usage of the English language is purely rational. For instance, whilst writing this reply, I am attempting to use reasoned argument to explain something that I believe is beyond the scope of reason, which obviously comes across to you as unreasonable.
I also depart from you with the term "rational intuition" (which is the only form of intuition in which analytic philosophers are interested). As I have explained, I do not view intuition as a form of a priori knowledge, but rather a posteriori knowledge; knowledge that can be immediately experienced without relying on reasoned language to explain the experience.
What you're discussing as regards scientific knowledge is empiricism and empirical observation. I think empiricism and intuition can work well together, although to reiterate I believe knowledge can be attained beyond the sensory experience.
