I find these kinds of posts really hard to... fathom.
Its kinda like having studied "economics" for years in school, and then finding out that it was Keynesian economics, and there are several other schools of economic theory. When you again read a post that is based on ..."expanding" (keynesian) economics you just have to shake your head.
There are entire mental practices for enhancing and strengthening intuition. Entire libraries on where and what intuition is and where it comes from. (investigate muses) There are entire catalogs of higher senses.
But, the one thing intuition can't deal with is rigorous scientific analysis. Intuition is an open/expansive/collective thing. Being forced into a closed environment where they try to break everything down is the undoing of intuition. So, while science is so focused on breaking everything down to understand it (that is actually what science means- scythe - to cut) intuition will eternally be elusive. And most scientists say that is proof that intuition isn't real.
Kinda like carrying a candle around trying to find some dark. Or keeping your eyes covered while seeking for some light.
I don't think that intuitive knowledge is incompatible with science. A lot of the time, it's the intuition that forms the hypothesis in the first place. Like with the discovery of Penecilin. The scientist didn't have to think twice about the mold, but arguably it was his intuition that made him do so.
Of course, just like you say, once you get down to the grit of science intuition gets pushed aside. And I agree that this is a good thing.
But to say that intuition and science are incompatible is going a little too far.
I, in no way believe that science is incompatible with intuition. Without intuition we wouldn't have any new discoveries.
What I was trying to say is that you cannot scientifically study intuition. The constraints that science currently works under, pushes intuition away. Its like a box, that inside the lab is empty, but in a forest it is full of wondrous stuff.
Sorry for misinterpreting your comment there. I definitely agree that science pushes intuition away. But I also think that it's possible to scientifically study intuition. That doesn't mean that it results in a successful study that boils intuition down to its physical/chemical mechanism. But it does mean that we can try to learn about it with controlled experimentation.
I agree with what I think you said.
But, I disagree with you symantically.
Science - from the same root worth as scythe. To cut apart. Or taking apart to understand. Breaking everything down.
There is also putting things together to understand them.
physics and metaphysics are not two separate fields. They are one continuous whole. And when you discard metaphysics, you end up with stupid science that can't understand consciousness or intuition.
Whatever we call the study of things happening in the future, that will be able to study intuition. And, there is already great amounts of detailed study on intuition in mystic traditions like Zen and Buddhism.