Q&A: Intuition
Intuition
Question
I was wondering: if there is some particular hypothesis that seems intuitive and reasonable on its face, but once you examine it more deeply you discover that it has implications that are not intuitive at all, while there is another hypothesis that seems at first glance less intuitively plausible, but the result of examining it more deeply is more reasonable than the first one — is there a problem with adopting the second possibility just because of its implications? For some reason that feels intellectually dishonest to me.
Answer
This is too general a question, and there is not much point in discussing it as such (like the question whether to force the language or the reasoning. The question is how forced it is in terms of language and how forced it is in terms of reasoning, what kind of strain is involved, and so on).
Generally speaking, part of our assessment of a claim involves looking at its implications. If they are unreasonable, that retroactively reveals that the claim itself is also unreasonable. If they are merely inconvenient (and not unreasonable), then rejecting the claim itself on that basis is indeed dishonest. a0
Discussion on Answer
Indeed.
Take, for example, the ontological proof. Suppose you tell me its premises, and I tell you they seem reasonable and correct to me, and then you tell me its conclusion (that God exists), and suddenly I change my mind and decide that the premises are not reasonable and that there must be something wrong with them. Isn’t that intellectually dishonest?
According to your reply, I assume you would say that it depends on whether I reject God for reasons of convenience or for reasons of intuition and philosophy, right? (Just making sure.)