epistemology
Professors Cappon and Myers agree that the process of intuition is an important way to attain knowledge. However Myers criticizes intuition as a perilous means of knowing. This paper will demonstrate that, perhaps instinct is not a foolproof means of attaining knowledge, nevertheless reasoning and logic can fail us as well. It is the human mind rather then the process that causes the error in both causes. Intuition, then, is by no means inferior to the other processes of attaining knowledge.
According to Daniel Cappon, intuition is denigrated by a western culture obsessed by “facts” and science to the point that it has been dismissed by society. However, intuition is the very tool that has brought us to this stage in evolution, and is a tool still just as relevant in modern times. Intuition is a sense, just as reliable as the more common senses. However the only difference with intuition is that we do not understand its mechanism of action. However, surely we are not so foolish as to dismiss a proven concept solely because we do not understand why it works.
In the article ‘perils of intuition’ David Myers attempts to discredit the phenomenon of intuition. Myers offers the example of a pilot whose intuition supposedly erroneously suggested that a human’s advice is more credible than that of a computer. The example of the pilot is not a case of intuition, but rather deductive reasoning. The pilot came to the conclusion that a human’s advice was trust worthier than a computer system based upon his prior experiences. We could of course find sufficient support for such an argument. A human has the ability to use discretion, based on prior experience, in a given situation whereas a computer cannot. It would be logical than to conclude that a human may often be more reliable then a computer system. Having shown that the pilot used reasoning, rather than intuition to come to his conclusion, it follows then that even reasoning can sometimes be erroneous if not
According to Daniel Cappon, intuition is denigrated by a western culture obsessed by “facts” and science to the point that it has been dismissed by society. However, intuition is the very tool that has brought us to this stage in evolution, and is a tool still just as relevant in modern times. Intuition is a sense, just as reliable as the more common senses. However the only difference with intuition is that we do not understand its mechanism of action. However, surely we are not so foolish as to dismiss a proven concept solely because we do not understand why it works.
In the article ‘perils of intuition’ David Myers attempts to discredit the phenomenon of intuition. Myers offers the example of a pilot whose intuition supposedly erroneously suggested that a human’s advice is more credible than that of a computer. The example of the pilot is not a case of intuition, but rather deductive reasoning. The pilot came to the conclusion that a human’s advice was trust worthier than a computer system based upon his prior experiences. We could of course find sufficient support for such an argument. A human has the ability to use discretion, based on prior experience, in a given situation whereas a computer cannot. It would be logical than to conclude that a human may often be more reliable then a computer system. Having shown that the pilot used reasoning, rather than intuition to come to his conclusion, it follows then that even reasoning can sometimes be erroneous if not