The point at 947 was particularly interesting since I had just minutes before read this article by Karl Popper: Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963.
I agree with you that intuition is a very good thing for the troubleshooter, the soldier, the parent, the artist and a vast number of scenarios. In many instances the intuition is “informed” by training, qualia and past experience.
Well.... Thank you very much for your relating this, about falsification. Of course, intuition is necessary, in order to even come up with attempts to falsify, right. It is difficult I'd say, to come up with many experiments that aren't developed by a scientist's imagining of at least elements of it, in order to devise it.
To me, while Popper's discontent with confirmation is very valid, I think that at heart this is a matter of man's overconfidence and overextentions of his pet theories (especially in the theorist's heart). -- I suppose then, a a struggle with evidences is what it is at head. ;-) Pinging bb here, since I think she also has a pet theory of the overextension of theories by theorists!
And as it happens, djf was just telling me about Kurt Godel and A. S. Eddington.
What would Godel have to say about Popper's confidence that anything that can be falsified is untrue? (But then, not even mathematics provides "proof" in quite the way that objective physical evidence is scientific proof.)
(This particular tangent of mine came from my disagreement with way of dismissing Heartlander's little parable of the thinking machine and the programmer out of hand, based upon a kind of anecdotal use of scientific evidence. Heartlander was dealing with matters beyond physical sciences, in a very logical little fable about consciousness not being subsumptive of consciouslessness.)
This particular tangent of mine came from my disagreement with tortoise's way of dismissing Heartlander's little parable of the thinking machine and the programmer out of hand, based upon a kind of anecdotal use of scientific evidence. Heartlander was dealing with matters beyond physical sciences, in a very logical little fable about consciousness not being subsumptive of consciouslessness.
And in naming, I should ping.
But in case tp is reading this, "Enough about me...."
My point in bringing up Popper was to illustrate the tendency of some to "annoint" a scientific theory as true, without putting it to a rigorous test.
IOW, intuition would not be helpful in determining the truth of Einstein's theories and would be misleading with Marx.