Ok, this is going to give me a headache but I have to understand this:
“As their respective histories in the sciences show (Koch, 1976; Kobusch, 1976), the notions of ‘‘intuition’’ and ‘‘introspection’’ originated in two different disciplines.
Generally speaking, ‘‘intuition’’ has its roots in philosophy and the philosophy of science, while ‘‘introspection’’ stems primarily from psychology.
Earlier 20th-century endeavours to replace introspection with intuition in philosophy and psychology or to transcend the differences between both modes of apprehension – as, e.g., in the work of H. Bergson (see Laird, 1917) – have met with little success and are now considered outdated by many.
Introspection and intuition are two different faculties of the mind.
Introspection is both the ability and the activity (‘‘metacognition’’) of examining and describing one’s own internal psychological states and processes. Although introspective data may be reported and shared (in particular, as they are made available through language), introspection itself is subjective (private) and its object is purely psychological (see Nelson, 1996; Koriat, 2007).
On the other hand, intuition is not, and cannot be, subjective in the sense that introspection is, and the object of intuition is not a psychological object.
Intuition is, by definition, intersubjective (Itkonen, 2003, pp. 44–48, 2008, p. 24).
This is a corollary of the fact that intuition is a cultural manifestation of a mental faculty.
Its object is, to use Itkonen’s terminology (2003, p. 15), norms or rules, not regularities.
Recall that, in Itkonen’s parlance, ‘‘norms’’ are units of shared social practices.
They presuppose that human beings who interact according to these norms have knowledge of them and that people can use these norms correctly or incorrectly. Better still, they suppose, in Coseriu’s parlance, that people can create them anew and change them in acts of discourse (Coseriu, 1974, 1975a).
Conversely, the term ‘‘regularity’’ refers to what happens in the natural world according to the laws of nature, i.e., physical and biological states and events.
Quite simply, regularities do not presuppose human knowledge, nor human creativity, nor an ability to discriminate between correct and incorrect (Itkonen, 1980a).
Furthermore, they do not exhibit the features of intentional acts, while norms do.”