[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Case --

[Case]:
> At first I thought 'intuitive reasoning' was an oxymoron.
> Then I found this:
>
> "Consider the following problem: is the Pope a bachelor?
>
> Two approaches suggest themselves to solve this "bachelor" problem, each
> producing a different answer.
> One possibility is an intuitive solution: our understanding of "bachelor"
> reflects similarity relations among people who are known to be bachelors.
> According to this intuitive approach, the Pope would not be seen as a
< bachelor.
> Alternatively, we may represent the concept of "bachelor" as a person who
> satisfies the rule, "unmarried, adult, male." Under this formal
definition,
> the Pope, contrary to intuition, indeed would be a bachelor."

Your research inspired me to do some of my own.  Intuitive reasoning seemed
to describe how logic and reason can serve as the basis for metaphysical
theories such as Cusa's first principle and my negational theory of
Creation.  But you aroused my curiosity as to how others might have used the
term and how it was interpreted.  Here's what I found for "intuitive
reasoning" under philosophy:

"Renaissance thinkers believed that the rational soul was divided into two
main functions: discursive reasoning and intuitive reasoning.  Discursive
reasoning, a lower form of reason, was essentially empirical reasoning and
was associated with the Will.  Intuitive reasoning was the higher form of
reason and implied an inspiration from God; it was identified with
Understanding and combined the ideals of faith and wisdom.

"Descartes offered a traditional version of the cosmological argument for
god's existence.  From the cogito I know that I exist, and since I am not
perfect in every way, I cannot have caused myself.  So something else must
have caused my existence, and no matter what that something is (my
parents?), we could ask what caused it to exist.  The chain of causes must
end eventually, and that will be with the ultimate, perfect, self-caused
being, or god.

"As Antoine Arnauld pointed out in an Objection published along with the
Meditations themselves, there is a problem with this reasoning.  Since
Descartes will use the existence (and veracity) of god to prove the
reliability of clear and distinct ideas in Meditation Four, his use of clear
and distinct ideas to prove the existence of god in Meditation Three is an
example of circular reasoning. Descartes replied that his argument is not
circular because intuitive reasoning-in the proof of god as in the
cogito-requires no further support in the moment of its conception."

I tend to associate intuitive reasoning with good detective work, such as
that for which Sherlock Holmes is famous.

In Conan Doyle's short story "Silver Blaze", Holmes' powers of deduction
unravel the mystery of a missing race horse and identify the villain as the
thoroughbred's trainer, although Scotland Yard has arrested a man who was
believed to have stolen the horse from the trainer's stall.  What is unique
about the solution of this crime is not only facts that were observed but at
least one that wasn't -- the trainer's dog didn't bark.  This is where
Holme's intuition comes in.  We learn of it in a dialogue between Holmes and
Scotland Yard detective Gregory:

Gregory : "Is there any other point to which you
would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Thanks, Case.  You've convinced me that intuitive reasoning is a valid form
of deductive logic.  I think I'll stick with it.

Best regards,
Ham