Intuitions play a critical role in analytical philosophical activity. But do they qualify as genuine evidence for the sorts of conclusions philosophers seek? Skeptical arguments against intuitions are reviewed, and a variety of ways of trying to legitimate them are considered. A defense is off ered of their evidential status by showing how their evidential status can be embedded in a naturalistic framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alvin I. Goldman (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: