Intuition vs Evidence
For years, countless people think that when the gut tells them something is true there's good reason to think that it is true. Charlatans, pseudoscientists, religious fanatics and medical quacks don't think they need evidence. In An Essay Concerning HumanUnderstanding, John Locke called such gut thinking enthusiasm and showed that it cannot justify belief; it cannot lead to knowledge. Gut feelings are a dime a dozen, and can be had by anyone, anywhere, to support anything. Your gut tells you something is true, but someone else's gut tells them the same thing is false. Of course, something can't both be true and false. And if you try to use your gut feelings to justify the reliability of your gut feelings, then you are just arguing in a circle. So gut feelings are worthless when it comes to providing justification; they can't lead to knowledge.
Relying on evidence and good reason, not gut feeling, to form your beliefs is sound philosophy. The great success of philosophy in employing evidence and reason ended up creating new disciplines. Most of the major classic philosophers were also mathematicians, and mathematics is just an extension of logic--the basis of all philosophy.
Further, the entire discipline of science was first called natural philosophy, and science is driven by induction and abduction--forms of reasoning perfected by philosophers. In The Ethics of Belief, William Clifford argued that,
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
David Kyle Johnson, Ph.D.
Psychology Today
No comments:
Post a Comment