>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.
SquareIsCircle t1_ixehcpc wrote
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.