I believe these two words are used in science to express properties of actions, functions or other processes that are either what you expect to occur or what seems converse to what you expect might occur.

How do humans arrive at the intuitive hypothesis in the first place?

Is this purely past experience based or how else is being intuitive determined scientifically or in assuming an outcome of any experiment at anytime determined by the masses?

monkey skipper said:

I believe these two words are used in science to express properties of actions, functions or other processes that are either what you expect to occur or what seems converse to what you expect might occur.

How do humans arrive at the intuitive hypothesis in the first place?

Is this purely past experience based or how else is being intuitive determined scientifically or in assuming an outcome of any experiment at anytime determined by the masses?

Another word for common sense?

I mean it’s bleedin obvious that the sun goes around the earth. Any idiot can see that.

I don’t think intuition is part of the scientific process.
However intuitive and counter-intuitive are used to describe the effect of a cause.
I’d imagine the first few days on the space station would cause a big reassessment of your intuition.

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t think intuition is part of the scientific process.
However intuitive and counter-intuitive are used to describe the effect of a cause.
I’d imagine the first few days on the space station would cause a big reassessment of your intuition.

I’d say that intuition was a big part of forming new hypotheses.

How much is based on experience, and how much on what “seems reasonable”, and how much of what “seems reasonable” ultimately comes down to experience, is hard to say.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t think intuition is part of the scientific process.
However intuitive and counter-intuitive are used to describe the effect of a cause.
I’d imagine the first few days on the space station would cause a big reassessment of your intuition.

I’d say that intuition was a big part of forming new hypotheses.

How much is based on experience, and how much on what “seems reasonable”, and how much of what “seems reasonable” ultimately comes down to experience, is hard to say.

Well yes, most science was about observation and then formulating a set of rules to explain the observation.
Then particle physicists came along, they didn’t observe an atomic explosion and say ‘I wonder how that works’ they did the formulating first.

Peak Warming Man said:

Well yes, most science was about observation and then formulating a set of rules to explain the observation.
Then particle physicists came along, they didn’t observe an atomic explosion and say ‘I wonder how that works’ they did the formulating first.

Atomic theory is based on observations.

The Rev Dodgson said:

How much is based on experience, and how much on what “seems reasonable”, and how much of what “seems reasonable” ultimately comes down to experience, is hard to say.

One often encounters texts that claim how weird quantum mechanics is, and I used to think that way as well. But now, I don’t think quantum mechanics is weird. Quantum mechanical behaviour has now become a part of my intuition to the extent that behaviours that would conflict with quantum mechanics seem to conflict with my intuition.

>to the extent that behaviours that would conflict with quantum mechanics seem to conflict with my intuition.

So, if I shot you out of a cannon at a wall that had two small gaps in it, you’d be surprised if you didn’t go through both?

:)

sibeen said:

>to the extent that behaviours that would conflict with quantum mechanics seem to conflict with my intuition.

So, if I shot you out of a cannon at a wall that had two small gaps in it, you’d be surprised if you didn’t go through both?

:)

You’d change the outcome by observing it…

You’d change the outcome by observing it…

i don’t think i could watch…

ChrispenEvan said:

You’d change the outcome by observing it…

i don’t think i could watch…

What happens if you look away at the last minute?

Is this purely past experience based
————————————————————

Unlikely, if so how does an infant ‘know’ how to find a teat and what to do with it?

How does a bird first fly?

Then again, how did the first one work it out…

Skeptic Pete said:

monkey skipper said:

I believe these two words are used in science to express properties of actions, functions or other processes that are either what you expect to occur or what seems converse to what you expect might occur.

How do humans arrive at the intuitive hypothesis in the first place?

Is this purely past experience based or how else is being intuitive determined scientifically or in assuming an outcome of any experiment at anytime determined by the masses?

Another word for common sense?

I mean it’s bleedin obvious that the sun goes around the earth. Any idiot can see that.

Interesting people thought the earth was flat for quite some time.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t think intuition is part of the scientific process.
However intuitive and counter-intuitive are used to describe the effect of a cause.
I’d imagine the first few days on the space station would cause a big reassessment of your intuition.

I’d say that intuition was a big part of forming new hypotheses.

How much is based on experience, and how much on what “seems reasonable”, and how much of what “seems reasonable” ultimately comes down to experience, is hard to say.

Well yes, most science was about observation and then formulating a set of rules to explain the observation.
Then particle physicists came along, they didn’t observe an atomic explosion and say ‘I wonder how that works’ they did the formulating first.

Thanks interesting points about what we think we understand and how that is applied to future projects based on similar principles ie if I understand your points raised.

sibeen said:

So, if I shot you out of a cannon at a wall that had two small gaps in it, you’d be surprised if you didn’t go through both?

A macroscopic object behaving classically doesn’t violate quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics does in principle have the capacity to deal with systems containing an arbitrary large number of interacting particles. Part of having an intuition about quantum mechanics is understanding why macroscopic systems do behave classically. So, no, I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t go through both gaps.

Humans evolved within the physics of the world, so maybe not a bad start in that. Probably not too much of stretch to say humans evolved ‘from’ the physics of the world. Gravity is not a bad ‘compass’ for starters, quite a deadly teacher in fact.

Lessons to be had going way back from light also, possibly including the non-visible IR. Quite a geometry lesson to be had from visible light.

As for the ‘counter-intuitive’, i’d guess we ‘expect’ some surprises. Is expecting surprises all learned?

I prefer the term ‘native’. Sort of puts natural and intuitive together in neat way and doesn’t exclude our tree-swinging ancestors’ contribution. It has a sort of modern feel about it when you talk about ‘native intelligence’. Tends to attribute something individual also, not too much loaded with it being a social construction.

;)