Thank you Olle Häggström for this overview and comments about the similar situation in our dear neighbor country. I just want to underline what you wrote about the use of analogues in science:
"Similarly, we must make use of analogies, such as between what we have observed in the laboratory and how the observed phenomena may be expected to play out in the wild, or between something observed under certain conditions in 2025 and how it might reappear under somewhat different conditions in 2027."
In all fields of science (except pure mathematics), models, plays a central role. One way to define scientific models is: Models are descriptions, abstract or material, that reflect or represent, and hence provide access to, selected parts of the reality. (Sci. Models, Springer 2016). A class of models are in fact called analogous models to give us access to a selected part of reality by comparing to something else that we might be more familiar with. An example of this is Bohr's model of the atom as an analogy of the solar system. So in that sense, analogies are highly central in science.
Furthermore, the third term, intuition, can be viewed as a so called mental model, i.e. something we use on daily basis without even consider it as being a type of unwritten model.
Regarding intuition, I defend it in the blog post, and of course I stand by that, but let me nevertheless say something a bit more nuanced about it:
I view intuition as being qualitatively not much different from ordinary reasoning, except that we do not have conscious access to the reasoning steps. As with all reasoning, it is fallible, but the lack of conscious access makes it more difficult to check for errors. It is therefore often desirable (and of course especially so in the context of scientific investigation) to try, when it is at all possible, to lift the reasoning to conscious experience.
Thank you Olle Häggström for this overview and comments about the similar situation in our dear neighbor country. I just want to underline what you wrote about the use of analogues in science:
"Similarly, we must make use of analogies, such as between what we have observed in the laboratory and how the observed phenomena may be expected to play out in the wild, or between something observed under certain conditions in 2025 and how it might reappear under somewhat different conditions in 2027."
In all fields of science (except pure mathematics), models, plays a central role. One way to define scientific models is: Models are descriptions, abstract or material, that reflect or represent, and hence provide access to, selected parts of the reality. (Sci. Models, Springer 2016). A class of models are in fact called analogous models to give us access to a selected part of reality by comparing to something else that we might be more familiar with. An example of this is Bohr's model of the atom as an analogy of the solar system. So in that sense, analogies are highly central in science.
Furthermore, the third term, intuition, can be viewed as a so called mental model, i.e. something we use on daily basis without even consider it as being a type of unwritten model.
Thank you, Torbjörn, for excellent remarks! For the benefit of third parties, allow me to link to the wonderful book you mentioned: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-27081-4
Regarding intuition, I defend it in the blog post, and of course I stand by that, but let me nevertheless say something a bit more nuanced about it:
I view intuition as being qualitatively not much different from ordinary reasoning, except that we do not have conscious access to the reasoning steps. As with all reasoning, it is fallible, but the lack of conscious access makes it more difficult to check for errors. It is therefore often desirable (and of course especially so in the context of scientific investigation) to try, when it is at all possible, to lift the reasoning to conscious experience.