No reason justifies disbelief.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure. Having an objective way to distinguish between true and false intuitions (as well as sensory experiences) would be necessary in order for them to be useful, or practically meaningful in any way.  Otherwise, you're just guessing at shit, lol.

Well, yeah, but once you accept that we can guess right outside of and without the use of sensory experience you're wondering about the reliability of guessing, not the validity of intuition as a basis for knowledge, and you've already accepted that empiricism is not the basis of knowledge in doing so.  

There are people who argue for an additional qualifier to the jtb, along these lines, actually.  They insist on the criterion of reliability.  Ultimately that's a separate question.  It may be that intuition is less reliable than empiricism.....but so long as intuition ever grants any knowledge at all, sense experience cannot be the foundation of knowledge as empiricism claims.  

Well, sure I do! I have a physical photograph of a beejatzulifren, and when I look at it, I see that it has a kenbanhindra (and damn you for making me have to type out those words, lol. ) It really doesn't matter how we're labeling the pictures in the book; there is still a physical book with pictures in it.  But, I understand where you're going with this.  

PFT, whatchyou talkin bout, I speak good and everything! My made up words are beautiful and anyone who has occasion to type them is blessed! 

Right.  And, I can imagine the concept of a unicorn, but that doesn't necessarily mean that, "unicorns are real" is a truth statement.  You'd be right to say I have no empirical knowledge of unicorns, because there is no empirical evidence that unicorns exist. We have concepts of unicorns that, may or may not be universally agreed upon, but I'm not sure how that's a separate or special category of knowledge or realness. People imagine things, and we know people imagine things because we tell each other about it. What's the big deal about that?

There's the rub.  If you're not certain that it's a separate concept then it would help to show how the concept of unicorns were empirical.  Otherwise, your own words above..that you have no empirical knowledge of unicorns...is a brilliantly effective rhetorical weapon against your skepticism.  You started this paragraph by making a definitive statement that directly argues against your later uncertainty.  To your credit, you suggest that people imagine things, that we do have this experience...but remember when I reversed the characterization of the other than empirical as "real+"...and stated that it's actually the empirical rather than the intuited (in your use imagined) that deserves the +?

In a way, you're suggesting that intuition is, itself, empirical...though perhaps not the most reliable representative of the empirical set.     

Give me an example of knowledge about something in existence that is not empirical.

How about your "blondeness"?  Does it actually relate and is it necessarily bound to the empirical fact of the color of your (and my) hair?  If we can verify that a person is empirically blonde...does that grant them, then, the attribute of "blondeness" you referred to earlier..or is it possible that this thing "blondeness" is something you intuit wholly apart from an empirical fact of the color of hair or any other empirical fact?  That no amount of individual instances of empirically noting blonde hair will or ven can ever demonstrate blondeness?

-and yes, I know it's a joke, but if it's not about the empirical fact of the color of someones hair...what empirical fact is it about?  

I honestly don't know.  I'm finding that I distrust human intuition more and more as time marches on, because so many assumptions that we make based on intuition end up being incorrect once the evidence comes in. I guess, it's intuitive to me that I exist, and others exist.  I have to make that assumption in order to function, or at the very least, it would be a lot more cumbersome to function under the assumption of the alternative.  But, I wouldn't say that I am in possession of non-empirical knowledge  that points to a fact that I, and others exist.

Feel ya.  However, if you intuit that you exist, how we're using the term as real vs real+, then you must by definition possess some non empirical fact of your existence, similar to the non empirical facts of my beautiful made up words above.  

-and consider this...we're having this wonderful conversation on the basis of the weakest version of "other than empirical" knowledge.   

We haven't even hit the fire to the pan shit of innate knowledge...like..for example, the knowledge that you exist that you've begun to express above.

---

Or, a person could just scroll back through these pages.

I've scrolled back through my comments, and I'm saying that you're full of shit.  Tell me what metaphysical or immaterial assertions I've made, because I'm saying it never happened.  I think you are getting confused between my actual statements and your many straw men.

You say alot of things, Benny. That's what got us here.