Question

Suppose I enter a room. Someone tells me there is an invisible ghost on the chair. I think in my head "well, there’s no evidence there is." I feel, intuitively, extremely confident there is no ghost. After all, there is no evidence.

Suppose I now enter another room. Over here, someone comes up to me and tells me to think of a number between 1 and 1000. I think of one. He then guesses it correctly. I feel a bit suspicious, doubtful. I ask him to do it again. And he guesses it correctly. He then, inconveniently, leaves the room. I stand there puzzled. Intuitively, I start harboring the suspicion that he may be a witch or a psychic.

But when I come back to my senses, from a philosophical standpoint, there still seems to be no evidence here. There doesn’t even seem to be any "more" evidence than the first scenario. Surely, the chances of him guessing it correctly were very minute. But one would have to show the alternative (i.e. psychism or some other physical way of doing this) is possible. And logically, the predictions themselves don’t prove anything.

Yet, my intuition remains. The degree of confidence I feel is not enough for me to fully believe he had special powers. However, it is certainly higher than the ghost scenario. And yet, I can’t find any reason to suggest or show why this should be the case.

What to do then, in a case like this, where my intuition conflicts with my reason? Which is supposed to be more accurate? Or am I doomed in not knowing the answer to this?

Answer 1

In philosophy, the tension between intuition and reason is well-recognized, and while intuition can be valuable, it requires scrutiny and should not be confused with evidence.

Step-by-step explanation:

The dilemma you describe, where intuition conflicts with reason, is a classic issue in philosophy. It illustrates the tension between the immediate, gut-level reactions we have to events (intuition) and the more deliberate, evidence-based conclusions we draw upon reflection (reason). Although intuition can sometimes guide us to truth, especially within fields where we have expertise, it can also lead us astray, especially in unfamiliar territory or when we lack sufficient data to form an accurate picture. Philosophically, intuition can be a powerful tool, but it requires careful scrutiny and validation against objective evidence and common sense. One must consider that, even with astonishing events such as the accurate guessing of a number, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As such, the absence of evidence for an alternative, like psychic phenomena, should temper our intuitive suspicions until more conclusive evidence is presented. Rational thinking should typically be prioritized when it conflicts with mere intuition, except in cases where one has expertise that informs the intuitive response.

Reason suggests an awareness that odds, however slim, can occasionally play out in real life, while intuition might scream that something extraordinary is afoot. The wise course of action is to examine intuition just as critically as one would an argument or a piece of evidence, being careful not to confuse intuition for conclusive evidence itself.