Causality

In philosophy intuition is used in reasoning as a test-bed for the conclusions of philosophical arguments. Logic, rhetoric and intuition are the main conceptual tools in philosophical reasoning. Intuition often acts as a sort of empirical verification of the acceptability of a particular thesis. Rather like a sort of empirical test or an experimental control, to use an analogy with what happens in natural science. The basis for this method is that intuition is generalisable, or in other words, broadly speaking, it can be shared at a universal level. Moreover, intuition must have foundational validity, a primary capacity for justification that is greater than any other alternative information. It should be greater than the reference to data from the cultural and religious tradition, for example, or the recourse to the theses of classical authors. Likewise it should be able to withstand the hypotheses and empirical confirmations of scientific and technical knowledge. Experimental philosophy appears to question intuition’s alleged foundational and universal nature. Intuition is a psychological phenomenon linked to what is conventionally known, according to some authors (Stanovich 1999; see Chap. 9 of Viale 2012), but not to others (Gigerenzer 2007), as System 1 of mind. Contrary to System 2, which is rational and explicit, this system is implicit and highly contextdependent. It is permeable to the influences of emotional variables derived from the cultural and environmental context. Seen in this way, it would seem difficult to affirm the thesis of the universality of human intuition. The underlying hypothesis derived from the findings of cognitive science argues the contrary: namely that intuition is local and contingent, changing in relation not only to cultural context but also to individual psychological variables, like personality traits or emotional and affective contingencies. Experimental philosophy has explored the universality