1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

The relationship between intuition and logic in science

Discussion in 'The Cave' started by KalosKaiAgathos, Jan 29, 2019.

  1. KalosKaiAgathos

    KalosKaiAgathos New Member


    In my experience, science is like a puzzle that needs to be completed. The puzzle of science is currently incomplete because if she were complete, you'd fully understand nature. But you don't fully understand nature currently, and thus it can be concluded that the puzzle is currently incomplete. You can complete that puzzle and lay bare nature's laws through the activity of science.

    You're not working a vacuum though--the puzzle board is not empty--you rely on a ~3,000-year-old scientific tradition. Many puzzle pieces already exist on the board, being put there by scientists of the past. The board also contains many empty spots that are not yet filled with puzzle pieces - current gaps in human knowledge.

    Completing the puzzle is analogous to fully understanding nature. To perfect the puzzle, you need to insert new pieces onto the board and find out whether the newly created pattern makes sense. If the pattern doesn't make sense, the puzzle piece does not fit in that spot.

    That pursuit of filling the gaps - the pursuit of novelty - is where the relationship between intuition and logic comes in:

    Intuition has two roles:

    Firstly, intuition is a "hunch" allowing you to bridge a large empty space between two existing puzzle pieces. That space is big enough so that not just to one puzzle piece can be filled between them, but at least multiple pieces.

    Secondly, intuition tests a new puzzle piece a few steps away from the current collection of pieces on the board - making a far out guess and venturing into previously unexplored territory on the board.

    After having had an intuition, logic allows you to bridge the gap between the existing puzzle pieces and your intuition. Logic works in discrete steps, and cannot make leaps. From a logic perspective, you often need a couple of steps to arrive at your intuition.

    , as a 20th-century scientist, you may have assumed that jetlag alters brain functioning (that principle was unproven in the early 20th century. Your jetlag thesis is an intuition at that point. You then had to prove that thesis with logic, making several steps to draw a connection between 1) the light in the environment; 2) the photoreceptors in the eye; 3) the SNC in the hypothalamus. Only by connecting the concept of jetlag through 3 separate logical steps to the brain is the intuition proven correct - the existing puzzle pieces are connected through 3 intermediary puzzle pieces (the logical steps) to a new piece in unexplored territory.

    Sure, intuitions are often wrong, but the best scientists use anyway and then use logic for the verification/falsification process. The essential lesson is that intuition makes the best moves--without intuition, you'd never make a radical new connections on the board.

    At best, logic allows you to make small steps on the board, or to just relate already existing pieces to each other. Logic alone is thus not sufficient in science.

    One last mindbender: intuition may perhaps also re-arrange all the existing puzzle pieces on the board to form a new pattern (a Kuhnian paradigm shift)....
    Camelx and David Limacher like this.
  2. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    I don't have a problem with this idea but here is the other chapter: Why focus on generating new science when so much of the science already published has not been useful to man because it remains unconnected to nature's framework.......because man thinks his ideas are better?

    For example:
    In the early 20th century, evolutionary theory was used to support socialism and laissez-faire capitalism. I'd argue that this is going on right now in the 21st century too. Those two competing ideologies were justified by appeal to biological claims about the nature of evolution.

    Those justifications may seem puzzling to the linear thinker. If science claims to generate only a limited set of facts about the world—say, the mechanisms of biological diversification—it is unclear how they could inform anything so far removed as economic theory. One way to do it via the chaos theory and information theory which uses the butterfly effect.

    Part of the answer might be that the process of interpreting and applying scientific theories can generate divergent results and ideas. I think this is why biology went away from vitalism and went toward biochemistry and determinism in the 20th century. What has that gotten mankind in the 20th century?

    DISEASE epidemics. Now we've built an electromagnetic world that affects vitalism at a very fundamental level. How will the biologic paradigm of biochemistry and determinism handle this when its effects show up in biologic systems today?

    They will be impotent to understand them much less diagnose things properly = today.

    Despite science’s capacities to render some exceedingly clear and well-verified central cases, its broader uses can become intertwined with separate knowledge claims, values, and ideologies and be radically corrupted and it won't serve the public good. I think we are there today. Nutrition research is a perfect example. This is how we got EatLancet and the idea veganism and a plant diet is good when the evidence really goes the other way. Thus, the apparently clear deliverances of natural sciences have been leveraged to endorse competing views to suit an agenda.

    In this world, you have to self educate yourself and make sure the experts you listen to pack your parachute better than the paradigm can = That is the journey of the Black Swan.
    KalosKaiAgathos and Camelx like this.
  3. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    I think good intuition is a function of great colony redox power in the human. This is why common sense does not grow in every garden today.

    This is why I prune my social media networks so frequently these days.

    I am evaluating those whom I speak with in ways many of them would have no way of knowing.
  4. ElectricUniverse

    ElectricUniverse New Member

    I would add that science without intuition, feeling, and morality is a schizophrenic endeavor that is always unsettled and unsettling. At best it gives us a dim view of the cosmos as might be seen through a kaleidoscope. At worst, it promotes the foolishness of unbridled technology and false beliefs that are inimicable to natural order of universe.

    I could give many modern examples of this, but the myth of AGW, or man-caused global warming, is astoundingly remarkable for its almost religiously fanatic 'established science' adherents.
    KrusinWitchie likes this.
  5. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    The Russians did in during the revolution and we are repeating it with this EatLancet crap going on right now.

    Many well-known discussions of ideological influence on science illustrate how ideology can warp science because of the agenda of the day.

    One notorious FOOD episode frequently construed as an ideological distortion of science is from mid-20th-century Soviet biology, when the agricultural research of Trofim Lysenko was at the center of a broader effort to shape uniquely Soviet biology (Roll-Hansen 2005; Graham 2016).

    Lysenko and others claimed that grain growth and heredity could be significantly influenced by environmental alterations such as treating the seeds with cold and moisture and that such alterations could lead to improved crop yields and the reformulation of genetics writ large. The claims about temperature effects are true, while the latter claims are contested and more problematic.

    The ideological forces contributing to the rise of Lysenko’s science were at least twofold: First was a Soviet concern that natural science should address practical problems and contribute to the common good of the people—the connection with agriculture here was obvious in this period of scarcity and famine.

    The second problem was the Marxist precept that organisms are shaped primarily by their environments rather than determined by innate biological traits.

    Some Soviet scientists and politicians of the period understood Western genetics to be corrupted by capitalist notions of competition, innateness, and individualism, while they saw Western science more generally as unduly prioritizing pure theoretical science disconnected from the needs of the masses.

    While there was some merit in such critiques EVEN today, Lysenkoist science was a failure on its own terms: Crop yields were not radically improved.

    Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, Stalin’s explicit approval of Lysenkoism as officially Soviet and the dominant idea, and the ensuing eradication of a critical research community—including the imprisonment of dissenting scientists—contributed to the precipitous decline of Soviet genetics in this period.

    This is what the FCC, EPA, and CDC are doing now in the USA with nnEMF.

    Political power structures that hinder open and critical debate damage science.
  6. KalosKaiAgathos

    KalosKaiAgathos New Member

    Thanks a lot, uncle Kruser, yes, you're 100% correct, using the puzzle pieces that are currently available is very important, and often completely ignored.

    Another example is your problem with PhDs, which I wholeheartedly agree with: PhDs often focus on just one puzzle piece, and then claim to understand the entire worlth through that piece. That myopia is very dangerous, and I'm willing to go as far as to claim that everyone needs to at least try to understand most of the puzzle pieces of the board to have an understanding of the world, instead of trying to focus too narrowly on a single piece of the puzzle and then claim to have developed knowledge.

    Yes, PhDs are important, and fundamental research into one part of reality does help very much, but knowledge like that remains one single puzzle piece that does not capture reality as a whole in any meaningful sense...
    KrusinWitchie and Jack Kruse like this.
  7. ElectricUniverse

    ElectricUniverse New Member

    PhD-- everyone knows what that means-- Piled higher and Deeper.
    Karen & Glen C., recoen and CjHedberg like this.
  8. 5G Canary

    5G Canary Gold


    Einstein had it right - intuition is most definitely a gift from the universe. When used correctly there is no better endorphin rush then finding a piece that fits ever so perfectly into that universal puzzle. It’s important to not limit the number of pieces you use - the important ones always standout to the observant eye! :thumbsup:
    recoen and Karen & Glen C. like this.

Share This Page