Malhotra Kanishk Malhotra TOK essay Reason in Conflict: When Rationality and Intuition Meet Introduction In the wide

arena of knowledge, truth remains an inherently subjective reality. On one level, what may be determined as known, or as established knowledge, has traditionally gone through abrupt and sometimes extraordinary reversals, when new information compels a revision of the truth. There are many examples of such changes, ranging from how biological knowledge has substituted reasons of earlier explanations of illness, and then about the understanding of changes in the makeup and nature of our planet. The subjectivity here arises, not from the knowledge as being asserted from limited and personal perspectives, but from the limitations of the processes of thinking and discovery. Essentially, knowledge may only go by what it has got on at any given time, and is therefore intrinsically suspect. Simply, the unequivocal truth enjoys that status only until the new truth arrives. Then, there is the further and more complex issue of arriving at knowledge or truth. Information is a somewhat changeable thing. It is impossible to base the conclusions and ideas always on factual and objective knowledge, since unfortunately everything we think is influenced by the intuitive processes. Therefore, conflict arises, and in virtually every arena in which human thought seeks to establish truth. This conflict reaches its peak when we are faced with varieties of knowledge that run contrary to our intuitive thinking. As will be examined, the ability to discard these intuitively-based conclusions in favor of seemingly more rational or reasonable explanations for a thing is an admittedly challenging kind of knowledge itself, and one never achieved, ironically, without some measure of intuitive and logical thinking working in concert. The Components

Name 2 Human beings cling stubbornly to what they just know. In often doing so in they face challenging, and more reasonable, information. We all develop our own, individual collections of practical knowledge. Our experience informs and we come to believe absolutely that even the most subjective paths to this knowledge are factually formed. We have seen this or done that, and we have witnessed patterns of consequences. For most of us, this becomes actual truth, or substantiated knowledge. Add to this formula the powerful attraction of the confidence a sense of knowledge imparts, and intuitive thinking becomes a strongly defended asset in our arsenal of reasoning. Intuitive knowledge is, consequently, something of an oxymoron. More precisely, it is never free from questioning as to its validity because it largely rests on a foundation of feeling and perception. This aspect renders it highly attractive, and in the most visceral way; we assert a thing to be true because, based on often indefinable impressions forged by equally remote experiences, it feels right (Stassen Berger 450). Then, the larger reality exists of how the validity of a truth itself functions in our lives. Subjective or misinformed, it is a truth because it is a truth that works for us, and that in itself is a reasonable definition of knowledge. It is when the other player in this arena, that of rational or logical thought, enters the scene, that problems arise. Interestingly, there is an intuitive attraction to rational thinking, even as it may contrast with its own precepts; we value rational thought frequently because it may bring our own perceptions in accord with how the world at large thinks (Sternberg, Kaufman 814). In basic terms, if we can find logical and more universally accepted evidence for what we ourselves intuitively hold to be true, out intuitive powers are highly elevated by the support of objective knowledge. This was the case with Edward Jenner who, in the 18th century, observed that milkmaids who had been ill with cowpox never contracted the far more deadly smallpox. Intuition, fueled by personal observation, led to analytic discovery (Plotkin 14).

Malhotra The dilemma within this happy scenario, unfortunately, is that we ourselves, again, may never be fully sure of how our intuitive thinking occurs. More exactly, logical thinking is not the precise and removed methodology we would like to believe it is. If human beings are capable of performing rational thought in an objective manner, the ability is so influenced by individual potentials as to render it subject to incalculable variables. It has certainly been documented that people possessed of high cognitive abilities are better able to avoid bias in their thinking, but the reality is that the vast majority of people evince a bounded rationality (Eysenck 369). We can set aside personal inclinations, effects of personal experience, and the many biases affecting our judgment, but we cannot do this consistently at all. Moreover, no study can ever truly determine precisely where individual perception, or intuition, ends and where clear, objective, rational thinking begins. In a very real sense, logical thinking is an elusive and perpetually desired ideal. It is a goal only sometimes reached, and inherently suspect even then. Intuitive thinking is the means very much at hand, available to all, and continually attempting to meet as closely as possible a more clear rationality. The Conflict Given the inherently problematic issues within any approach to knowledge, the question then becomes: when and how should intuitive thinking give way to a contrasting logic? The answer lies in addressing how the enormous attraction of intuitive knowledge may actually help to make the acquisition of the logical just as appealing. To arrive at a solution wherein these different kinds of thinking may be reconciled, or wherein the more correct, logical explanation for a thing may take precedence, it is not the thinking that must be considered, but the motives behind each form. An intrinsic component of intuitive thinking is its ability to, in simple terms, save time. It creates for itself shortcuts in the thinking process, even as it seeks to arrive at a logical, or

Name 4 sensible, conclusion (Hativa 168). Logical or analytic thinking, conversely, demands that each step be taken into consideration. This rigorous aspect to it typically renders logical thinking extremely off-putting. This course may be highly successful, of course; famously, the Curies had an intuitive sense that an element was unidentified, despite the knowledge of the day affirming that all elements were known. It was only Henri Becquerel's recent discovery of thorium in 1898 that gave Marie Curie the sense that another radioactive property was acting within pitchblend, and began the long, exhaustive months of analytical research that would isolate radium (Adloff 13). Here, intuition prompted logical thinking. Moreover, the intuition required the logic be arrived at through long and intense work. For the rational explanation to be accepted, then, the entire process behind it must be viewed in a manner that both validates the intuitive and is willing to follow through. It may be commonly felt, despite evidence to the contrary, that logical and intuitive modes of thought are mutually exclusive. This is completely untrue. Each must rely upon the other; as the intuitive thinking gains substance by the analytical, so too does the latter have great need of the former. Intuitive thinking, by virtue of its failure to follow the proscribed forms of the analytic, famously uncovers avenues and possibilities the analytic cannot perceive (Bruner 58). Isaac Newton, perhaps the most brilliantly intuitive thinker in history, illustrates this: For Newton, logic and proof were just a means of communicating and verifying what he 'knew already' (Parsons 52). He pursued logic because it would give a platform to his trusted, intuitive knowledge. Most importantly, the logical explanation accepted in place of the one arrived at intuitively furthers the cause of intuitive thinking, even if the conclusions differ. The analytic explanation, basically, must be accepted when it provides more substantial reasoning, and addresses issues not attended to by the intuitive. However, it also adds weight to the intuitive processes yet to be undergone, for it supplies a further resource upon which intuition may draw. Intuitive thinking,

Malhotra as noted, is by no means a process wherein strictly personal impressions and views are given free rein to reach conclusions; on the contrary, it very much relies on substantive and empirical information as collected by the thinker. The analytic explanation may be disagreeable to the intuitive holder of a contrasting view, but it may be taken in fully and willingly when that individual accepts the complex and evolving nature of the intuitive process itself. In other words, even when it contradicts, the logical explanation actually validates, for it must be merged into the greater whole of the intuitive thinking experience. Conclusion It is unfortunate that intuitive thinking suffers from so biased a reputation. It actually exists in a far more expansive capacity than analytic thinking, for the latter essentially only serves to follow the intuitive lead. Moreover, no explanation is ever strictly the product of one kind of thinking, so the intuitive one is never, in fact, fully discarded. It serves a purpose in the journey to the accepted explanation, it very likely created the need for that explanation, and the explanation itself will then become a further implement in intuitive processes to come. Abandoning an intuitive conclusion in favor of a logical one may be accomplished when the stronger force of the latter simply demands consideration, and this itself happens by means of intuitive and logical thinking working in concert.

Name 6

Works Cited Adloff, J. P. One Hundred Years After the Discovery of Radioactivity. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2009. Print. Bruner, J. S. The Process of Education. New Haven: Harvard University Press, 1977. Print. Eysenck, M. W. Psychology: An International Perspective. New York: Psychology Press, 2004. Print. Hativa, N. Teaching for Effective Learning in Higher Education. New York: Springer, 2001. Print. Parsons, D. W. Keynes and the Quest for a Moral Science: A Study of Economics and Alchemy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1997. Print. Plotkin, S. A. History of Vaccine Development. New York: Springer, 2011. Print. Stassen Berger, K. The Developing Person Through Childhood and Adolescence. New York: Worth Publishers, 2008. Print. Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, S. B. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.