In the alternative, intuitions still give evidence, the suggestion is merely to make more discriminating use of them. And a claim that intuitions are uncorrelated with truth would be pretty hard to defend.
And a claim that intuitions are uncorrelated with truth would be pretty hard to defend.
Depends on whose intuitions, and the truth of which class of statements. Truth value of a randomly constructed statement? Almost certainly no correlation. Truth value of a "relevant" statement, relevant in the context in which our intuitions were honed? Probably correlated.
EDIT: Requesting explanation for the downvote.
Closely related to some of Luke's recent discussions about philosophy, philosopher Paul Thagard has recently called for changes to the way we do philosophy:
In the same article, Thagard also lists eleven areas where modern philosophy goes awry. For example:
Source: Philosopher, Paul Thagard