While I understand the drive – especially in medicine – to include and profit off experiential knowledge and the kind of subconscious decision making that intuition is, if you *cannot communicate this* it isn’t Science yet. And the funny part: Trying to develop a language to communicate these untapped sources of insights *is what the author critizised as an overemphasis on formal knowledge*.
Once you actually start to track the hit rate of intuition and experience – again, especially in medicine – you see that it has a far lower success rate than well developed schemata and can only really be considered worthwhile *on top* of a solid, formal basis in order to minimize error rate. Which in medicine directly translates to harm caused.
1 Comment
While I understand the drive – especially in medicine – to include and profit off experiential knowledge and the kind of subconscious decision making that intuition is, if you *cannot communicate this* it isn’t Science yet. And the funny part: Trying to develop a language to communicate these untapped sources of insights *is what the author critizised as an overemphasis on formal knowledge*.
Once you actually start to track the hit rate of intuition and experience – again, especially in medicine – you see that it has a far lower success rate than well developed schemata and can only really be considered worthwhile *on top* of a solid, formal basis in order to minimize error rate. Which in medicine directly translates to harm caused.