Ryoso89 said:
However, how do you determine validity of evidence for matters of intuition?
Thought I'll just jump in here and hazard my own take too!
I think the simple fact is (and this taps nicely into Jungian stuff) at the end of the day, intuition-sensation are placed as compensatory for a reason -- you really do need to at some point tackle the sensation, so generally it's hard to determine the validity of intuitive hunches without putting nose to the ground
eventually. Einstein was amazing at envisioning solutions using intuition, hardly a nose-buried-to-grounded-facts type, but at the end of the day it was necessary to test his stuff out and prove it using real experimental observations.
Those who wish to operate more in the realm of "pure" intuition that isn't ultimately confirmed or analyzed or whatever (i.e. neither sensation nor judging functions is applied) needs to stick to things like mysticism-oriented metaphysics. You can probe simply ways of seeing things as long as you want as long as staying in that realm!
Otherwise, one has to stick to intuition as a means of speculation that need be confirmed, not as defining your reality by itself. The danger with the mystical approach is one can grow very certain of something on psychological grounds which just disagrees with other theories of the universe in an ad hoc way (because one isn't being held to evidence). But, there are cases of more openminded mystics who are able to see at least
sufficient (even if not total) unity in many approaches.
Of course, even such mystics tap into sensation as a way of kindling their mystical states (e.g. dietary restrictions).