Intuition as a Source of Evidence in Philosophy: The Minimal View
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2024iss24pp9-24Keywords:
intuition, epistemic status of intuition, evidence, source of evidenceAbstract
In the past two decades, there has been a sudden increase of inquiry within the branch of analytic philosophy on the nature and role of intuition in philosophy. Philosophers began to investigate what intuition is, how it should be defined, what role it plays in philosophy, what its epistemic status is and many more. There is also a growing number of philosophers arguing that the whole debate rests on a mistake: intuition in philosophy plays no role whatsoever and philosophers do not use it as (a source of) evidence for their philosophical claims. This strategy is often conducted by differentiating among the two senses in which intuition is supposed to play an evidential role in philosophy. Intuition, thus, can be understood as a state of intuiting something or a propositional content that is intuited. Intuition in the first sense, the argument goes, cannot be treated as evidence as it would present the risk of psychologizing evidence in philosophy. If, however, we take intuition as evidence in the second sense, there is nothing distinctive about it: ultimately, all evidence in philosophy is of propositional nature, regardless of the intuitiveness of a given proposition.
In my paper, I argue that this strategy fails and propose, instead, the view on intuition that, firstly, explains why the aforementioned distinction does not render the intuitiveness of the content irrelevant to its epistemic status, secondly, is in accord with the current findings in psychology, and, thirdly, is minimal enough to allow the different views of intuitions to be incorporated under that umbrella. In particular, I argue that it is an intuitive judgment, characterized by its non-inferentiality and defeasibility, that serves as evidence for particular philosophical claims, while its source is an intuition understood as a state of non-propositional character that can be examined empirically.
References
Anderson, F. (1926). Intuition. The Journal of Philosophy, 23(14), 365-377.
Balcerak Jackson, M. (2018). Intuitions as Inferential Judgments. Philosophical Issues, 28(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12114
Bealer, G. (1996). A Priori Knowledge and the Scope of Philosophy. Philosophical Studies, 81(2-3), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372777
Bealer, G. (1998). Intuition and the Autonomy of Philosophy. In M. DePaul & W. Ramsay (Eds.), Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry (pp. 201-240). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Bealer, G. (2008). Intuition and Modal Error. In Q. Smith (Ed.), Epistemology: New Essays (pp. 189-223). Oxford University Press.
Bengson, J. (2015). The Intellectual Given. Mind, 124(495), 707-760. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzv029
Cappelen, H. (2012). Philosophy Without Intuitions. Oxford University Press.
Cekiera, K. (2023). Thought Experiments and Conceptual Analysis in Ethics. Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia, 18(1), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.19195/1895-8001.18.1.2
Chalmers, D. (2014). Intuitions in Philosophy: A Minimal Defense. Philosophical Studies, 171(3), 535-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0288-x
Chudnoff, E. (2013). Intuition. Oxford University Press.
Climenhaga, N. (2018). Intuitions Are Used as Evidence in Philosophy. Mind, 127(505), 69-104. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzw032
Dane, E. & Pratt, M. (2007). Exploring Intuition and Its Role in Managerial Decision Making. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159279
DePaul, M. & Ramsay, W. (Eds.) (1998). Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Deutsch, M. (2010). Intuitions, Counter-Examples, and Experimental Philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(3), 447-460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-010-0033-0
Deutsch, M. (2015). The Myth of the Intuitive: Experimental Philosophy and Philosophical Method. The MIT Press.
Devitt, M. (2015). Relying on Intuitions: Where Cappelen and Deutsch Go Wrong. Inquiry, 58(7-8), 669-699. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2015.1084824
Earlenbaugh, J. & Molyneux, B. (2009). Intuitions Are Inclinations to Believe. Philosophical Studies, 145(1), 89-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9388-4
Gettier, E. (1963). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121-123.
Hodgkinson, G., Langan-Fox, J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2008). Intuition: A Fundamental Bridging Construct in the Behavioural Sciences. British Journal of Psychology, 99(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712607X216666
Hintikka, J. (2003). The Notion of Intuition in Husserl. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 224(2), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.224.0057
Jenkins, C. S. I. (2014). Intuition, ‘Intuition’, Concepts and the A Priori. In A. R. Booth & D. Rowbottom (Eds.), Intuitions (pp. 91-115). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199609192.003.0006
Kal, V. (1988). On Intuition and Discursive Reasoning in Aristotle. Brill.
Koksvik, O. (2017). The Phenomenology of Intuition. Philosophy Compass, 12(1), e12387.
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Blackwell.
Ludwig, K. (2007). The Epistemology of Thought Experiments: First Person versus Third Person Approaches. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XXXI, 126-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.2007.00160.x
Ludwig, K. (2010). Intuitions and Relativity. Philosophical Psychology, 23(4), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2010.505877
McGahhey, M. & Van Leeuwen, N. (2018). Interpreting Intuitions. In J. Kirsch & P. Pedrini (Eds.), Third-Person Self- Knowledge, Self-Interpretation, and Narrative (pp. 73-98). Springer.
Nado, J. (2016). The Intuition Deniers. Philosophical Studies, 173(3), 781-900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0519-9
Nado, J. (2017). Demythologizing Intuition. Inquiry, 60(4), 386-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2016.1220639
Nicoli, S. M. (2016). The Role of Intuitions in Philosophical Methodology. Palgrave Macmillan.
Osbeck, L.M. & Held, B.S. (Eds.) (2014). Rational Intuition. Philosophical Roots, Scientific Investigations. Cambridge University Press.
Pedersen, J. R. R. (2015). A Defense of the Evidential-Role View of Intuitions. Teorema, 34(3), 101-121.
Piętka, D. (2015). The Concept of Intuition and Its Role in Plato and Aristotle. Organon, 47, 23-40.
Preston, A. (2015). Intuition in Analytic Philosophy. Teorema, 34(3), 37-55.
Pryor, J. (2014). There Is Immediate Justification. In M. Steup, J. Turri, & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Second Edition (pp. 202-222). Wiley Blackwell,
Pust, J (2001). Against Explanationist Skepticism Regarding Philosophical Intuitions. Philosophical Studies, 106(3), 227-258. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013356707899
Pust, J. (2019). Intuition. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/intuition/
Sgaravatti, D. (2015). Thought Experiments, Concepts, and Conceptions. In E. Fischer & J. Collins (Eds.), Experimental Philosophy, Rationalism, and Naturalism: Rethinking Philosophical Method (pp. 132-150). Routledge.
Sorensen, R. A. (1992). Thought Experiments. Oxford University Press.
Sosa, E. (1996). Rational Intuition: Bealer on Its Nature and Epistemic Status. Philosophical Studies, 81(2-3), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372779
Sosa, E. (1998). Minimal Intuition. In M. DePaul & W. Ramsay (Eds.), Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry (pp. 257-270). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Sosa, E. (2007). Experimental Philosophy and Philosophical Intuition. Philosophical Studies, 132(1), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9050-3
Van Inwagen, P. (1997). Materialism and the Psychological-Continuity Account of Personal Identity. Noûs, 31(11), 305-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.31.s11.14
van Roojen, M. (2014). Moral Intuitionism, Experiments, and Skeptical Arguments. In A. R. Booth & D. Rowbottom (Eds.), Intuitions (pp. 148-164). Oxford University Press.
Weinberg, J. M. (2014). Cappelen between Rock and Hard Place. Philosophical Studies, 171(3), 545-553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0286-z
Weinberg, J., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2001). Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions. Philosophical Topics, 29(1-2), 429-460. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics2001291/217
Williamson, T. (2007). The Philosophy of Philosophy. Blackwell Publishing.
Yaniv, I., & Meyer, D. (1987). Activation and Metacognition of Inaccessible Stored Information: Potential Bases for Incubation Effects in Problem Solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13(2), 187-205.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso y Universidad de Valparaíso
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
