Nov11/May12 #4 When should we discard explanations that are intuitively appealing?

[Candidate 2011]

what are some explanations that seem intuitively appealing?

i need a few ideas to get me going...

much appreciated

[sweetnsimple786]

Well can "explanations that are intuitively appealing" be wrong? Why? When?

What if I wanted to investigate if there was any animal gelatin in marshmallows and Skittles because hypothetically I'm vegetarian? I personally looove marshmallows but don't care much for Skittles. So first I look at marshmallows. I have a stake in the matter, though. If they do contain animal gelatin, then I lose a favorite snack. Now I do my research/experiments/interviews. Then I look at Skittles. I don't really care either way because I don't eat Skittles, but I go through the same investigation. I would argue that I need to be more careful when I'm looking into marshmallows than when I'm looking into Skittles because I've got something to lose in the first one. So that's a personal example for me of how biases can affect judgment and lead me to possibly false conclusions. [This was a personal example because I really don't eat marshmallows unless they're kosher anymore but I never liked Skittles so that didn't affect me.] Can you think of how your personal characteristics may make you invested in the outcome in a search for knowledge? We see it often in the sciences. We as scientists try really hard not to let what we think will happen interfere with how we interpret the end results. Also in history, we evaluate primary and secondary sources and look for if the creator of the work could have any biases.

[Sandwich]

^^ and you can also have examples of intuitive reasoning based on perception, like we see the sun coming up in the sky, moving across, then dipping down -- so intuitively we reason that for it to appear, move across and then disappear, the sun must be moving round the earth. Of course it's not true -- just like a flat horizon doesn't stop the earth from being a globe shape. Generally I'd say intuitive reasoning would be reasoning based on misinformed perception or biased emotion (as in Sweensimple's example). We extrapolate from something we see or feel, only we extrapolate wrongly because we rely too heavily on the evidence of our perceptions.

I'm sure you can think of tonnes. An obvious one would be creation -- we know that things are complex, we think that when we make complex things it's not easy, it doesn't happen by accident and so from that we decide that there must have been some sort of creator for the world to exist. That's intuitively rather than logically reasoned ('cause its argument is pretty rubbish when you look at it and try to see whether the premises actually follow from each other!), and a good example of an intuitive explanation we're not all that happy about discarding because sometimes people find they benefit from it.

Some intuitive explanations are, of course, good ones. Otherwise we wouldn't rely on our intuition so much that we come up with bad ones! If I can pull clothing along a rail to the right, I intuitively reason that I ought to be able to pull it back to the left. This is pretty much always correct. You could argue that it's only a minority of intuitive explanations that are incorrect.

[Candidate 2011]

^^ and you can also have examples of intuitive reasoning based on perception, like we see the sun coming up in the sky, moving across, then dipping down -- so intuitively we reason that for it to appear, move across and then disappear, the sun must be moving round the earth. Of course it's not true -- just like a flat horizon doesn't stop the earth from being a globe shape. Generally I'd say intuitive reasoning would be reasoning based on misinformed perception or biased emotion (as in Sweensimple's example). We extrapolate from something we see or feel, only we extrapolate wrongly because we rely too heavily on the evidence of our perceptions.

I'm sure you can think of tonnes. An obvious one would be creation -- we know that things are complex, we think that when we make complex things it's not easy, it doesn't happen by accident and so from that we decide that there must have been some sort of creator for the world to exist. That's intuitively rather than logically reasoned ('cause its argument is pretty rubbish when you look at it and try to see whether the premises actually follow from each other!), and a good example of an intuitive explanation we're not all that happy about discarding because sometimes people find they benefit from it.

Some intuitive explanations are, of course, good ones. Otherwise we wouldn't rely on our intuition so much that we come up with bad ones! If I can pull clothing along a rail to the right, I intuitively reason that I ought to be able to pull it back to the left. This is pretty much always correct. You could argue that it's only a minority of intuitive explanations that are incorrect.

thanks guys, this really helps!!

i know theres plenty more, but when i need to begin writing everything just disappears and i go blank, yet when i dont need to write anything im always thinking of something if you get what i mean.

[banhbo_tt]

one question, can i write in a way that supports intuitive explanations ?

thank you!

[MyDearChild]

one question, can i write in a way that supports intuitive explanations ?

thank you!

yes, you can. Take ethics for example: there is no empirical evidence that murder is wrong-- this belief is based more on our intuition.

[Guest Apolo]

This title is probably one of the hardest from all the titles but still, it impresses me that few people are posting here :|

I mean, I'll be doing this title and already have got a draft of it but it would be helpful if someone else posted something to get more ideas and to discuss/debate on issues related to this topic

For me, intuitively appealing explanations are those which are simple in their content, well structured and convincing so, (for me) whatever that is said with these characteristics can be considered to be intuitively appealing as it will most definitely convince a person...

[Salky]

Hello. I chose this topic too, so I might aswell give you some tips.

#4 When should we discard explanations that are intuitively appealing?

You should start by splitting the sentence into pieces. To begin with, and intuition/interest aside: When should you discard an explanation? Think about that for a while and you will probably reach a pseudo-thesis statement. Next start by wondering what intuition is all about, try to define it in your own words. What is the difference betweek perception/sensing and intuition? Then mix that answer with the former to obtain a good substance.

This topic wants you to probably argue/discuss the preconcept of bias/subjectiveness on intuition that is usually frowned upon. Try looking at the problem from a scientific method perspective, piece by piece, no matter how stupid a hypothesis maybe, a scientist should follow it and reach a conclusion. You can't really know for sure. Behind every intuitive explanation, there is a solid piece of reasoning behind, subconscious, but it's there.

You are going to need some good examples too. Make it personal and share an experience of yours. Try with hunches.

I would think it's easy to lose the focus in the essay. Be sure you follow a neat structure.

If you are going to be very analytical and making a jigsaw of the question make sure to link it all up in the end. Don't leave loose ends. If you are going for a more 'general' approach on it then be sure you know what you are saying before you start, or you will lose the focus.

Treat the topic as if it was a journey [of the ideas]. I would think any experimental science would fit nicely [for examples or support]. Try ethics as well. A vintage Sherlock Holmes hunch.

Good luck (:

[Jean-Renier]

To bring a specific point about intuitively appealing circumstances.. if theory A becomes incorrect because the theory B supports that theory A is wrong, then theory A which was originally intuitively appealing could stop becoming intuitively appealing.. therefore the matter is not to discard the intuitively appealing knowledge but to discard the knowledge that WAS ONCE intuitively appealing..

we need to consider the extent regarding to how really appealing the theory or argument is. If the evidence that supports the disapprovement of that supposed theory or argument is not as convincing.. then the explanation might not be discarded lightly.. therefore the scale of certainty needs to be valued to discard the theory/argument..

please say otherwise if I'm wrong or if you do not understand.. to enlighten me thank you..

[Guest Outré]

To bring a specific point about intuitively appealing circumstances.. if theory A becomes incorrect because the theory B supports that theory A is wrong, then theory A which was originally intuitively appealing could stop becoming intuitively appealing.. therefore the matter is not to discard the intuitively appealing knowledge but to discard the knowledge that WAS ONCE intuitively appealing..

we need to consider the extent regarding to how really appealing the theory or argument is. If the evidence that supports the disapprovement of that supposed theory or argument is not as convincing.. then the explanation might not be discarded lightly.. therefore the scale of certainty needs to be valued to discard the theory/argument..

please say otherwise if I'm wrong or if you do not understand.. to enlighten me thank you..

I think in this case, you're talking mainly about Science. It is partially right what you said. However, in Science, no theory that once was accepted is regarded as wrong and no other theories disprove one. What happens is that there are what is called a "discovery" in deeper knowledge of the theory A which makes it less valid than the newly found theory B. But theory B is usually based on theory A because it is the knowledge that it's available, if you know what I mean. Like, you have to live up to the theories available at your time, you don't have any other knowledge besides what is already known so you can't "invent" more. In that way, your statement is wrong. (if you still don't understand, take for example the evolution of the Atom theory )

But the rest is fine

Hello. I chose this topic too, so I might aswell give you some tips.

#4 When should we discard explanations that are intuitively appealing?

You should start by splitting the sentence into pieces. To begin with, and intuition/interest aside: When should you discard an explanation? Think about that for a while and you will probably reach a pseudo-thesis statement. Next start by wondering what intuition is all about, try to define it in your own words. What is the difference betweek perception/sensing and intuition? Then mix that answer with the former to obtain a good substance.

This topic wants you to probably argue/discuss the preconcept of bias/subjectiveness on intuition that is usually frowned upon. Try looking at the problem from a scientific method perspective, piece by piece, no matter how stupid a hypothesis maybe, a scientist should follow it and reach a conclusion. You can't really know for sure. Behind every intuitive explanation, there is a solid piece of reasoning behind, subconscious, but it's there.

You are going to need some good examples too. Make it personal and share an experience of yours. Try with hunches.

I would think it's easy to lose the focus in the essay. Be sure you follow a neat structure.

If you are going to be very analytical and making a jigsaw of the question make sure to link it all up in the end. Don't leave loose ends. If you are going for a more 'general' approach on it then be sure you know what you are saying before you start, or you will lose the focus.

Treat the topic as if it was a journey [of the ideas]. I would think any experimental science would fit nicely [for examples or support]. Try ethics as well. A vintage Sherlock Holmes hunch.

Good luck (:

Just as I did but I did Science with History

[Solveig <3]

Im doing this topic as well....do you think it would be a good idea to include this experiment: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-–-why-shaking-someone’s-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/

its about when somebodies belief is questioned or an argument against it is presented that the person holding the belief will feel more strongly about it. I thought i could link it to our own bias when it comes to intuition? What do you guys think?

THank you

[Guest Outré]

It perfectly fits the title however, it must be well used or else you might end up wasting a good research with an incoherent idea :/

Even though it's quite relative (as sometimes, it's the own counterargument that is weak, making our own belief more reliable), it's acceptable but just bear that it depends on each situation and it's relative to each person as the article itself mentions.

Hope it was useful

[Tsu Ming]

My suggestion for anyone who is answering this question is to read Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink. It really talks about this kind of things.

[delan.elliot]

I am in the process of writing this topic as well, and I've found that it's hard to stop myself from writing a psychology paper instead of a ToK paper. I essentially divided the question into multiple parts and addressed each of them individually before holistically analyzing the question. I found that I had to labour to add the examples I needed to write a good ToK paper.

[Sandwich]

I am in the process of writing this topic as well, and I've found that it's hard to stop myself from writing a psychology paper instead of a ToK paper. I essentially divided the question into multiple parts and addressed each of them individually before holistically analyzing the question. I found that I had to labour to add the examples I needed to write a good ToK paper.

It does sound to me worryingly like you've missed the point of the essay then. There should be a total of 0% Psychology in it! TOK and Psychology aren't related. In what ways are you bringing in Psychology? You should have a focus on how we're acquiring knowledge 100% of the time.

[Knarik]

hello!

I wrote the essay and then I realized that it might not be on the right topic. Are you sure that we can write for intuitive explanations?

[Vivian]

Hey so i'm writing on this topic, last minute decision, and i'm stuck on how to start the essay and the points to add. How to relate ethics, sciences and arts to the question and also the ways of knowing. please help

[scowenkid]

This is a pretty helpful link, to get you started!

http://www.tokessaycomments.com/topic/exam-questions/tackling-nov-2011-may-2012-tok-questions.html

[prinxali]

is anyone available to chat to, about my tok essay on this topic? I have all my claims and counter claims sorted... it's just a lil sticky bit in the intro and id like to talk to someone about it if thats possible -- please let me knw if any one is free!

[blacksheep]

is anyone available to chat to, about my tok essay on this topic? I have all my claims and counter claims sorted... it's just a lil sticky bit in the intro and id like to talk to someone about it if thats possible -- please let me knw if any one is free!

Hi! I don't really know how this works but I wrote a tok essay about this topic too and if you want I can read it through and give you some advice. just let me know.