[lazide]

Another way to put what I think they were trying to say -

If you have a lack of knowledge, the ‘rational’ set of things to try can be so large that it’s overwhelming/impossible to actually try them. You have to pick something.

Intuition can help there (and is commonly found in almost all major discoveries), even if it isn’t necessarily right. Since it’s still more right than not listening to it.

But then you need to pay attention and do some rational analysis to verify, and then iterate.

[awesome_dude]

I have a lack of knowledge about the winning lottery numbers.

My intuition has never been any help on picking them.

Not listening to it, and just not buying the tickets would be more profitable.

Honestly, you're trying to claim that intuition is the foundation, when it's almost as bad as blind luck.

The most exciting phrase ever uttered in science is "Huh, that's not right" or "Woops"

[lazide]

It sounds like your intuition was just to not play, correct?

Or, after playing 10 times and not winning, to stop.

[awesome_dude]

No, I'm still playing, in the vain hope I will win enough to get someone else to tell me what the winning numbers will be

[lazide]

Oh, that just sounds like you’re unwilling to learn from experience.

[awesome_dude]

:)

I prefer the term "persistent" although people around me have translated that to "stubborn" somehow :)

[WgaqPdNr7PGLGVW]

> Honestly, you're trying to claim that intuition is the foundation, when it's almost as bad as blind luck.

Why do you think this?

[awesome_dude]

You got me, I'm a closet genius that always knows without a shadow of a doubt what people are thinking.