Activity

Trying to piece together your last post Genus:

“Science and rational intelligence provide data” then “skepticism is… a faculty of intellect” and is “operational, based on learning” and “subservient to (intellect)” “although it expands and is integral to its … integrity”.

This is all expanding on the statement we got stuck on earlier:

“Intuition without intellect leads to a wandering imagination and intellect without intuition leaves itself hobbled by skepticism.”

Piecing this all together, it seems you’re saying that intuition is the key to keeping skepticism in check. Skepticism keeps the imagination from wandering, but it can also prevent the intellect from proceeding to a new discovery. I’m not sure I can parse out the subtle differences you are seeing in “imagination” vs “intuition” to get what you’re saying here. I think we might agree that intuition has a component of knowledge and retains facts whereas imagination can take off in a flight of fancy, pure speculation. Not that there is anything wrong with speculation. You could say, speculation is a starting point of science then you use intellect mixed with intuition.

I think where our difficulties might begin is with the specific things you have expressed as possible and have claimed are supported by scientists and by data. We may agree on methods, but I don’t see how you get where you get without taking off beyond all likely probabilities and into the worlds of imagination. Again, nothing wrong with that, but I see it as the starting point, the speculative point. You seem to think science could get there if it removed some sort of skeptical roadblock.