I've combined several posts/responses here- > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snippage>
> ...I think the discussion of intuitive vs. scientific > thinking misses how science actually works. > > Intuition is an important part of science. Great > scientists, such as > Feynman, had overwhelming intuitive ability. > Feynman is legendary for his > rough guesses being validated by experiments 10-20 > years later. > > But, of course, he also had misses...he tended to > have several intuitive ideas a day. Most of them he > could dismiss himself. > The rest, he brought up to colleagues, who usually > found fatal flaws with > them. About once a month, they were worth > publishing. > > In my own case, I have worked very hard developing > my own intuition. I have > a "feel" for the transport of gammas and neutrons. > My rough arm waving > arguments usually get me in the ball park of the > right answer. > > But, I know that my intuition is not _that_ good... > > IMHO, intuition works best when combined with rigor. > In science at least, > one can make an intuitive leap to get to the idea, > but one is responsible > for going back and connecting the dots to make sure > one's intuition is correct... I had written: "...from my observations & experience in the medical field, a lot of "intuition" (including my own) is actually based on essentially sub-conscious integration of observations with prior knowledge. It's sort of like thinking without realizing it; it seems almost magical at times because one isn't aware of the processes ongoing, as they occur so swiftly. But without a foundation of education, learned knowledge, and prior experience, 'intuition' is as likely to be wrong as not." Our conceptions about intuition appear similar to me; I think that I came up with the fifty/fifty figure because in working with human beings, rather than subatomic particles, our inherent sense of what "we" do, think and feel is much more likely to be 'in the ballpark.' The Fool wrote: "The claim I'll make about intuition is that sometimes a portion of the large amount of background processing that your brain does might slip through the filter your mind uses, but it is hardly a rational, reasoned, and scientific process. And also based much more around hardwired instinctual responces that may not be very good." But when one is dealing with humans or higher animals, *reason* and *rationality* apply only infrequently! "Gut feelings" _do_ have a basis in the reality of human behavior; that is why self-defense classes for women urge that they pay attention to such 'instinctive' reactions. I know about the medical use of intuition, but I'll bet that law enforcement folk find it useful too. Dan again: > The distinction that I see is between linear > thinking and disjunctive > thinking. The former goes is a systematic fashion > from A to B to C. The > latter tends to jump from A to J, without stopping > at B, C, or D. That definitely occurs in diagnosing illness; while flowcharts and algorithms are very useful in teaching, or for less-trained personnel, sudden insight can allow that jump from Decision Point 2 to Decision Point 8c. The Fool: "You've merely trained your brain to do work that you used to do consciously to being done sub consciously." and "No, you only think it is skipping B, C and D." Our brains are not hardwired in linear fashion; survival often depends (or used to) on judgement and/or action being taken without certain knowledge. That is one reason for physical reflexes: they totally bypass any thinking whatsoever. Placing a hand on a hot surface generates the 'yank it away' response - no cortical neurons involved at all. Emotional reflexes are at least supra-cerebellar, usually tempered by some minimal thought, although not always: Awareness of being observed -> 'That fellow is watching me from the shadows...Get back inside!!' 'Thoughts' not articulated: I suddenly see a person standing in the shadow. It is a man, in dark clothes, with a ski mask covering his face. No one from the party was wearing a mask. A friend or aquaintance would say something, or wave. A woman in the neighborhood was attacked last week. The attacker was not apprehended. I do not have a weapon. I am defenseless if that man does. He has not yet moved toward me, but could probaly cover the ~25 feet between us in seconds. If I scream, my friends may not hear me over the music. I will calmly turn and go back toward the door, listening very carefully for any footfalls. If I hear any, I will immediately scream and run without turning around to look first, because at a run I'm only a few seconds away from the door. Later, one might describe to one's friends those 'thoughts,' but as potential prey, I can assure you that from awareness of being watched to turning back toward the door took about 1/3 of a second. When wakened by an unfamiliar presence, it takes more like 2-3 seconds to respond appropriately, with at least one articulated thought being "You're not my roommate!" > Finally, this leads us to the area of human thought > and behavior. That is > in a gray area where empirical observations can > provide some understanding, > but not full understanding. We don't know if > someone isn't trying enough or > if they just cannot do it...because we cannot get > "inside" another person... Although we can make fair guesses, as we understand what it is to be human (as opposed to a Quark <grin>). Andrew Paul: "...The Method is really just a fancy name for a formalised way of thinking (and sharing those thoughts in a safe and consensual way). So people noticed that the sun always seemed to rise over there, they knew it. Or people *knew* which way was up, they just didn't know why it was, or how it worked. Unlike now when we .. umm, still don't know, but can say that in a much longer way." <ROTFLOL> Debbi Integrating Hard Wiring With Soft Thoughts Maru ;-) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
