The definition of intuition that use is "recognition of an. incomplete pattern." If you understood the entire pattern, it would be knowledge. When relying on intuition there is always some epistemological deficiency. What is important is to identify the missing knowledge and attempt to close the gap.
OTOH, philosophical theories tend to rest on prior intuitions and it is tedious to work through a complete enumeration. Of course, if everyone listed all their priors, we would never get around to an actual discussion.
I would also add that I find the postmodern critique to be a valuable perspective, along side others. There are hard versions and softer versions. Although, to be honest, I believe that the term "objective" is meaningless. It implies a binary between subjective and the real, but if you look at what people are actually saying when they use the term, it is more along the line of "indisputable evidence." Well, is it really indisputable? Calling it objective just preempts the discussion. The whole scientific enterprise is based upon replication of experiments and studies. The fact that 100 or 1000 people have observed something similar really makes the observation intersubjective or communal. It's all experience and as you have often pointed out, experience is fallible. Instead of calling something objective, it would be better to offer an account of the evidence in its favor.
The definition of intuition that use is "recognition of an. incomplete pattern." If you understood the entire pattern, it would be knowledge. When relying on intuition there is always some epistemological deficiency. What is important is to identify the missing knowledge and attempt to close the gap.
OTOH, philosophical theories tend to rest on prior intuitions and it is tedious to work through a complete enumeration. Of course, if everyone listed all their priors, we would never get around to an actual discussion.
I would also add that I find the postmodern critique to be a valuable perspective, along side others. There are hard versions and softer versions. Although, to be honest, I believe that the term "objective" is meaningless. It implies a binary between subjective and the real, but if you look at what people are actually saying when they use the term, it is more along the line of "indisputable evidence." Well, is it really indisputable? Calling it objective just preempts the discussion. The whole scientific enterprise is based upon replication of experiments and studies. The fact that 100 or 1000 people have observed something similar really makes the observation intersubjective or communal. It's all experience and as you have often pointed out, experience is fallible. Instead of calling something objective, it would be better to offer an account of the evidence in its favor.
Science's knowledge is provisional, meaning it can change change or be corrected.