Jammer wrote:

...
On the one hand was the "a Beach one grain of sand at a time"; gather data, create hypothesis, grind more data tests, modify hypothesis, rinse & repeat crowd.

On the other hand was the "Flash of inspiration" group that felt, with some justification, without the inspiration of a touch of genius major science strides won't be made.
These quantum leaps of logic are, in effect, the lodestones of true science.

(Examples; Newton: gravity from a falling apple... etc.)

The problem with the Intuition system is that for every genius leaping there are a dozen daydreamers belly flopping...

Also please note Universities can teach the grind test approach, no one can teach intuitive leaps.

What do you feel about both? Which system tends to impress you the most at first blush?
How about over the long haul?

Jammer
....

Hmm...
You seem to be introducing two very broad topics in your question, both of which are worthy of consideration in depth.

First, you invite discussion on the feelings of posters on two approaches to science. On 'first blush', these two approaches appear to be indivisible. Both are part of a larger set of scientific methodologies and neither can adequately exist without the other. An arguable third member would be the dreamers who postulate psuedo-science by projecting existing laws beyond our current levels of understanding - Star Trek, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, etc. Some or all are even scientists in their own right.

Each approach, or side if you will, can result in different kinds of numerous 'issue' or problems. Jammer mentions the belly floppers of intuitive leaps (though those same belly floppers do occasionally find a gem after flopping), but there is the ostriches of the other approach - those who stick their heads into the sand to count grains, and completely miss the beauty of the sunset over the waves, or the collision of waves and rocks forming more sand. Dreamers can be too far removed from reality to contribute much of a worthwhile nature. All sides can possess certain fanatical devotees who claim their approach superior to another, but this smacks of devotion, which leads directly to belief and the religiously zealous defenders of one over another. Incidentally, the sides, and the spectrums of each, are strongly reminiscient of a species evolving to adapt to a changeable environment - just a side note.

It is only in the union of the dreamer, the intuitive leaper, and the schemer/plotter that science can truly develop and progress, however - as witnessed from the majority of endeavors in modern history.

Secondly though, you bring up a second topic and readily dismiss it - namely, that intuitive thought cannot be taught. To this I must strongly disagree. While most modern teaching philosophies are oriented to knowledge dumping and testing for knowledge absorption, the very concept of that teaching philosophy itself is rarely ever considered in a methodical fashion.

Try this link for far more elegantly composed thoughts on the topic: [www.philosophy-of-education.org]

Personally, I'm a *huge* fan of the intuitive teaching school. Presentation of a problem, with given parameters, whose solution relies on intuitive thinking can encourage this. Indeed, I owe most of my own problem solving and intuitive abilities (and I'm a software engineer by trade, so there is a *lot* of both involved daily) to an experiment run in my grade school around 4th and 5th grade in teaching grade school kids to problem solve and think intuitively. These days, 30 years later, it's all I can remember of school at that time - even down to the problems themselves that I never did solve.

True, problem solving is logical not intuitive, but when the answer can only be found through an intuitive leap and then confirmed with logic - what has been taught?

Also, I have found, and this may vary for others, that if I concentrate on a physical task and consciously think on what I am doing... I perform far more sub-par than if I just 'ride the moment' and let my body connect with my mind on a far less conscious level. If that's not intuition, I'd like to know what is

My favorite example is shooting pool. I can 'see' angles - up to 4 or 5 in a row (double bank, double collision, and where the target ball goes and where the cue ball goes) - in a mere glance at the table. Provided I do not *think* on the angles and how they work, just trust what I'm seeing. The moment I analyze it, the angles get distorted, off, etc. Then when I lean in to take a shot, I have to keep all the angles in view, but *not* think about the shot for more than 1-2 seconds.

To me, that's intuition - the subconscious amalgamation of all pertainable data and the processing thereof. That has direct bearing in science research, when you cannot always maintain all variables in your thinking mind, or when you're attempting to explain anomalies, you must listen to yourself and think past just what you know and into what you don't know. Poor words to describe the concept, but the end result is an unfounded conclusion that must be tested, evidenced, and proven before being accepted -- just like taking that shot in pool while trusting you saw the angles correctly, then proving it when the balls go where you wanted them to go.

Your intuition will always know things before you are consciously aware of them. The predatory stare from behind triggers a similar reaction in the brain that causes you to turn and see what triggered the reaction. It isn't always right, and every mind around knows that - that's why the conscious mind *always* accepts it, then seeks to prove it.

Training of intuition is possible -- look at what Rorshach did for the Air Force in training pilots to recognize silhouettes of enemy planes... reduced total recognition times by more than 50% - up to 80% or better for some. I believe he was tapping into intuition to grasp the images faster and associate them to a name more efficiently. Just a belief, it needs testing, but isn't that what you are speaking of? An intuitive leap, that needs testing to see if it's a belly flop or an olympic gold medal effort?