Do you agree with this statement?

[Quintessence]

A combination of what @Revoltingest pointed out and what @icehorse is why I marked disagree. Human cognition is well-tuned by centuries of evolution to make educated guesses that, in at least some situations, are more likely to be correct than random chance would assume.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I voted 'other'. I'd say, "A position unsupportable by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

Actually, when I put it that way, I'd say, "A position unsupportable ... is not even wrong."

 

[Mock Turtle]

I suppose I have to vote agree, since all else is evidence in some form, whether it comes from human development and experience or anywhere else. Any intuition or probability is usually based on some evidence - given anything novel has to be related to something we already know or suspect and hence tends to come from such. No evidence, then no reason to expect our guesses to be true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In your view is intuition evidence? Maybe weak evidence?

I would say not in and of itself, but the factors influencing a person's intuition might be.

What I mean is, if a person is intuitive it means they recognize patterns in behavior, cause/effect, etc. then are able to apply them correctly to new situations without consciously realizing the individual elements of the previously observed pattern. So, the evidence exists, but the individual is really aware of the evidence when they take their position ( make their choice ).

In this case, is the individual's intuition considered evidence even though it isn't something they can consistently prove?

For instance, most people's innate craving for salt and sugar is evidence that these things are healthy?

 

[Revoltingest]

A combination of what @Revoltingest pointed out and what @icehorse is why I marked disagree. Human cognition is well-tuned by centuries of evolution to make educated guesses that, in at least some situations, are more likely to be correct than random chance would assume.

Nothing "educated" about supernatural beliefs.
And human cognition varies in cromulence from
individual to individual. Some repeatedly pee on
the electric fence, hoping next time will differ.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Nothing "educated" about supernatural beliefs.

I think there can be. But that most people do it wrong.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nothing "educated" about supernatural beliefs.
And human cognition varies in cromulence from
individual to individual. Some repeatedly pee on
the electric fence, hoping next time will differ.

Each of us believes what they want to believe.
I know atheists who say God doesn't exist because nobody has seen him.
But the very same atheists believe ETs exist and visit us.
So...each of us decides to believe something.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think there can be.

Meh...I've yet to see anything cromulent cited.

But that most people do it wrong.

Or "not even wrong".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For instance, most people's innate craving for salt and sugar is evidence that these things are healthy?

No. And my modest craving for caramel-corn is not evidence that it is Tuesday. Both are entirely irrelevant if not incoherent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Each of us believes what they want to believe.

Some of us believe what we're compelled to by the evidence.
This leads to far fewer beliefs.

I know atheists who say God doesn't exist because nobody has seen him.
But the very same atheists believe ETs exist and visit us.
So...each of us decides to believe something.

Hypothetical atheists, eh.
Anyway, you might choose your beliefs.
I don't.
Believing in your God was never an option.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Meh...I've yet to see anything cromulent cited.

If I had a better attention span, I'd make a case using telescope images from the big telescopes that were sent out, say it might redefine some things we know, and just make a "we don't know" case. But I know how the thread would go. Some will be quick to pounce, others will turn it into a discussion about their personal walk, then I'll get into a discussion of my personal walk and all sides will make this face:

I guess the smartest thing for me to do is bite my tongue, in this case.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I had a better attention span, I'd make a case using telescope images from the big telescopes that were sent out, say it might redefine some things we know, and just make a "we don't know" case. But I know how the thread would go. Some will be quick to pounce, others will turn it into a discussion about their personal walk, then I'll get into a discussion of my personal walk and all sides will make this face:

I guess the smartest thing for me to do is bite my tongue, in this case.

There are many things not known.
Best to just be comfortable with that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think we use our knowledge of the world and how things work to make unevidenced guesses on things all the time.

Are these guesses generally right? No, I would say not. But they're more often right than a truly random guess.

Hand me a fruit I've never tasted, and I might guess it's sweet, sour, bitter...
I'm probably less likely to guess salty. And even less likely to guess 'ghost pepper hot'.

Now...do we count my extrapolations of what I know about other, unrelated fruits as 'evidence'? You could, I guess. So I answered 'other'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Anyway, you might choose your beliefs.
I don't.
Believing in your God was never an option.

This point is oft-overlooked.
You can choose what beliefs you claim. You can choose what evidence you consider. But you cannot directly choose your beliefs.

 

[Secret Chief]

Any intuition or probability is usually based on some evidence

Perhaps so, but if the intuition cannot be brought to the conscious mind and thus verbalised it is "unsupported."

 

[Revoltingest]

This point is oft-overlooked.
You can choose what beliefs you claim. You can choose what evidence you consider. But you cannot directly choose your beliefs.

It seems that some people can....or say they do.
Their option isn't mine.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This point is oft-overlooked.
You can choose what beliefs you claim. You can choose what evidence you consider. But you cannot directly choose your beliefs.

I might possibly agree with a whole bucket of kentucky fried nuances thrown in.

For example, some say that you tend to get your beliefs from your family. I mostly didn't, to the point where they often try to convince me of things, sometimes with some temporary success, today.

I think one does end up with some inclinations, behaviors, etc over time. I've also seen a few change them, even whole outlooks, and on purpose, but it usually takes years.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Perhaps so, but if the intuition cannot be brought to the conscious mind and thus verbalised it is "unsupported."

But surely the intuition is based on experiences and/or knowledge that we have ingested over our life? I can't see us having any useful intuition or as to assessing probability otherwise. So evidence must be involved along the way - just not noticed as such?

 

[Secret Chief]

But surely the intuition is based on experiences and/or knowledge that we have ingested over our life? I can't see us having any useful intuition or as to assessing probability otherwise. So evidence must be involved along the way - just not noticed as such?

We're probably agreeing. It may well be based on prior "evidence" but what that is may not be psychologically accessible to us. Or there may actually be none - just a "gut feeling."

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

But surely the intuition is based on experiences and/or knowledge that we have ingested over our life?

I'm kind of unconvinced. If everyone were to take an intuition test, I suspect results would be more similar for children vs. older folks, than if they were to take an IQ test.