Science and Intuition: Different Ways of Knowing
This image of legs crossed on table with one red and one yellow shoe represents science and intuition as two different ways of knowing.
Image by Franck V., courtesy of Unsplash
How do you know the things you know? What makes you sure that what you know is actually true?
When a scientific study proclaims a new fact – “we now know that birds are able to migrate long distances because they are able to see magnetic fields due to a special protein in their eyes” – do you automatically believe it?
What if someone close to you suddenly has a strong hunch that something bad is going to happen – “Mama”, my German grandmother pleaded with her mother, “we need to sell our apartment, it’s going to burn down, we must move away!” – do you heed their advice?
Most of us don’t rigorously question how and why we believe something to be true. We simply believe some things, disbelieve others, and are unsure about the rest. Some of us believe only what can be proven by science, some believe only in divine guidance, some rely on information passed down through wisdom traditions, and some rely on intuition. Most of us utilize a combination of these.
It’s important to recognize and honor different ways of knowing.
You might be wondering why it matters how we form our beliefs. One reason that stands out for me is with conflicts over land. Imagine a mountain that is sacred to an Indigenous group and that is also a targeted site for mining. The mining company’s belief is that nature exists as a resource for humans to maximize their profits. The Indigenous belief is that the land is sacred and humans have a responsibility to care for the land and all of its beings. The way the mining company has formed their beliefs makes them unable to comprehend how deeply linked the sacredness of the land is to the cultural survival of the Indigenous people. One aspect of addressing this ongoing colonial violence is to learn how to honor and appreciate – even celebrate – diverse ways of knowing.
Scientific ways of knowing
The word “science” can be used in many ways. It can refer back to Aristotle’s early contributions to science, or to Indigenous science. We are focusing on modern science, performed in laboratories and published in peer-reviewed journals.
By scientific ways of knowing, I mean using our analytical minds to study things that we observe with our physical senses. If we can detect it with our physical senses – and their technological extensions such as telescopes or microscopes – then it is something we can work with scientifically. We can measure it, categorize it, study its motion, and relate it to other things, for example through equations. What counts as knowledge through science is that which has been proven in a detached, objective manner through the rigorous and repeatable use of the scientific method.
Intuitive ways of knowing
By intuitive ways of knowing, I mean everything else. This is obviously a loose and broad use of the term “intuition”, but the point here is to contrast it with science. While science is carried out in a detached, objective manner, intuition is relational and deeply attuned to body and to place. While science requires the involvement of the physical senses, with intuition we acquire knowledge in ways other than with our physical senses. We may “see” or “hear” with our “inner senses”, we may get a strong feeling in our body, we may return from a meditative experience with a new knowing, or we may communicate with a spirit. Intuitive knowing includes empathy, telepathy, feeling someone else’s feelings in your own body, mystical experiences, ritual practices, and communicating with beings (human or otherwise) in ways that are not dependent on the physical senses.
To what extent do you think that the use of intuition results in knowledge that could be as important or valuable as the knowledge attained by science?
Scientific studies on the use of intuition
The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) is one example of a research facility dedicated to the scientific study of other ways of knowing. They are producing a growing body of scientific, peer-reviewed data showing that the use of intuitive abilities such as intention, prayer, etc. has a significant effect on outcomes. Although this research adheres strictly to the scientific method, mainstream scientists tend to disbelieve the results and refer to it as “fringe science”, presumably because it doesn’t fit in with their way of understanding the world.
Scientific studies on the use of intuition are interesting, but they shouldn’t have the final say on whether intuition “works” or not. Using science to determine what counts as knowledge assumes that science has the ultimate authority to define knowledge. But the point is that science is only one way of knowing! We need to recognize that there are other forms of knowing that are just as valid and valuable as science.
Science is not the only valid way of knowing
For those of us trained as scientists, it can seem as if science exists in its own right, as if it has always been there, objective and free from bias or context, providing the ultimate method of knowledge-making. But scholars in fields such as sociology and feminist studies are finding that science is an institution like any other, based on a set of assumptions about the world and fed by the social and political powers of our military-industrial complex. Science is valid in its own right, and it has obviously been an incredible source of inspiration and technological advance, but the knowledge that it provides is not purely objective – it is contextual, subject to power dynamics, and limited by its own metaphysical assumptions. Science is definitely not the only way of coming to terms with what our world is and what it means to be human.
Plus, science as we know it today has not always been the dominant way of knowing! The scientific way of knowing is based on a dualistic worldview - active, intelligent humans in control of a mute, passive nature. But non-dualistic worldviews flourished in 17th century Europe prior to the Scientific Revolution. Humans and nature were not separate. Nature was full of intelligence and agency, and humans had direct knowledge of nature. Medieval Europe provides another example: truth was defined by the Church, and human intellectual pursuits were limited by the Church’s spiritual authority.
Unfortunately, and not only in Europe, there is a long and ongoing history of marginalization and persecution of non-dominant ways of knowing. This occurs both because of a lack of tolerance and understanding, and also as part of economic and political aims. The persecution of “witches” in 16th and 17th century Europe (and elsewhere) is one example that has had a profound effect on me personally. But we can and must do better! Putting science as a form of knowledge-making into a broader historical context can help us learn how to honor other ways of knowing as valid and important in their own right.
Take a moment to reflect on what it means for both science and intuition to be valid ways of knowing.
If you’re a science person and haven’t had a chance to consider intuition as a valid way of knowing, this discussion might seem a bit on the edge to you. Why, you might say, would we accept something that came out of someone’s personal experience and that has no way of being verified by someone else? Well, it’s super important to recognize that while repeatability might be the gold standard for the scientific way of knowing, not every way of knowing has the same standards or goals. We are not trying to argue whether science or intuition is better, or whether either of them results in knowledge that is true or not, but simply to open our minds to the possibility that there are different ways of knowing that each have their own validity and importance when used in the appropriate context. A great example is the scientist Barbara McClintock, who used science and intuition in a mutually enhancing way.
Now see how you respond to the following question. Is it valid for an Indigenous group to claim that a piece of land has a spiritual significance crucial to their cultural survival, even if there is no scientific evidence of spirits or sacredness? What was your response? My response is that this is the wrong question, because it uses science as a way of knowing to judge a claim made with an Indigenous way of knowing. What we might do instead – better late than never – is to recognize and honor their way of knowing, making space for their culture to regenerate and be celebrated. Indeed, we have an obligation to do so.
