SquareIsCircle t1_ixehcpc wrote on November 22, 2022 at 8:50 PM

Reply to comment by gimboarretino in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | November 21, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

>why are we inclined to give more weight and validity to that proof, rather than to the primal intuitions?

It depends on what you mean by "proof." The two forms of "proof," deductive and inductive, each address a different issue with "intuition," i.e. internal consistency and observability.

Deductive reasoning (internal consistency) says Socrates cannot be both alive and dead. Inductive reasoning (observation) can test the statement "Socrates is alive" by showing that he is not.

You can't actually prove anything true, for the reasons you state, but you can prove things false. That's what logic does to intuition. If you can't prove your intuition false, that's generally when you feel like you "know" a thing, or have "proven" a thing to be true.

gimboarretino t1_ixgq1yj wrote on November 23, 2022 at 8:51 AM

>That's what logic does to intuition. If you can't prove your intuition false, that's generally when you feel like you "know" a thing, or have "proven" a thing to be true.

yes and no.

the very concept of "proving something false" implies a number of assumptions.
the existence of a subject, a critical thought, an external reality that follows decipherable rules and patterns, a language bearing meaning, the existence of the very intuition I am about to disprove.
I would say that these 'core intuitions' cannot be refuted by any rational proof, since rational proof itself presupposes them.