This sounds like a general argument in favor of acting on my intuitions rather than implementing theory. For example, if I intuit that turning left at this intersection will get me where I want to go, it seems that this argument suggests that I should turn left at this intersection rather than looking at a map.
No because I intuitively find that conclusion absurd.
I don’t fully understand your question, so I’ll clarify my previous comment in the hope that that helps.
Like I said, I find the notion that I should always rely on my intuition at the expense of looking at a map intuitively absurd, and that intuition is “stronger then” (for lack of a better term) then the intuition that I should turn left.
Yeah, I think that answers my question. If all you’ve got are intuitive judgments and a sense of their relative strength in various situations, then I need to know what your intuitive judgments about a situation are before I can apply any argument you make to that situation.
Regardless of my evaluation of your argument, given what you’ve told me so far, I cannot apply it to real-world situations without knowing your intuitions.
Or, at the very least, if I do apply it, there’s no reason to expect that you will endorse the result, or that the result will be at all related to what you will do in that situation, since what you will in fact do (if I’ve understood your account correctly) is consult your intuitions in that situation and act accordingly, regardless of the conclusions of your argument.
You should evaluate any argument I make on its merits, not on the basis of the intuitions I used to produce it.
Not true! The intuitions used constitute evidence! Evaluating only arguments provided and not the sampling used to provide them will (sometimes) lead you to wrong conclusions.
No because I intuitively find that conclusion absurd.
So… is it possible for me to understand what your stated argument actually suggests about X if I don’t know what your intuitive judgments on X are?
I don’t fully understand your question, so I’ll clarify my previous comment in the hope that that helps.
Like I said, I find the notion that I should always rely on my intuition at the expense of looking at a map intuitively absurd, and that intuition is “stronger then” (for lack of a better term) then the intuition that I should turn left.
Yeah, I think that answers my question. If all you’ve got are intuitive judgments and a sense of their relative strength in various situations, then I need to know what your intuitive judgments about a situation are before I can apply any argument you make to that situation.
You should evaluate any argument I make on its merits, not on the basis of the intuitions I used to produce it.
Regardless of my evaluation of your argument, given what you’ve told me so far, I cannot apply it to real-world situations without knowing your intuitions.
Or, at the very least, if I do apply it, there’s no reason to expect that you will endorse the result, or that the result will be at all related to what you will do in that situation, since what you will in fact do (if I’ve understood your account correctly) is consult your intuitions in that situation and act accordingly, regardless of the conclusions of your argument.
Not true! The intuitions used constitute evidence! Evaluating only arguments provided and not the sampling used to provide them will (sometimes) lead you to wrong conclusions.