Re: what data models cant do

Paul wrote:

> Kenneth Downs wrote:

> 
> OK, but their intuition was wrong, it's their logical thought process
> enlightening them.

Their intuition was correct but incomplete. It was not completed by reversing the inclination towards tables, but by sharpening the inclination towards tables.

> 
>>> It just goes to show that intuition isn't always right (cf. quantum
>>>  mechanics, relativity, etc.).

> 
> Isn't this a contradication in terms? Intuition is, by definition, that
> which is not learnt. Maybe I'm just pointlessly arguing semantics though.

I think that by definition it is "quick or ready insight or apprehension." -- by any means.

That which we are born knowing has been called many things through the ages, either a priori knowledge, archetypes, or even Dao. This is the first kind of intuition, and the kind I mean when I say tables are intuitively appealing.

That which we learn so well that it becomes second nature, such as our work, can be the second kind of intuition, where we can still experience the flash of insight without explanation, but only after the study has been done. Neither quantum nor relativity was intuitively clear to me when presented, but then neither was classical mechanics, it was only through study that I developed that ability to have the flash of insight that led to the correct answers before working out the derivation. The profs called that "physical intuition".

I should have been clearer on that distinction.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)