system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
When should we defer to our intuitions and when should we challenge them?

If I were to advance a moral argument that, for example, torturing others for our own pleasure is acceptable, most people would reject it out of hand as in conflict with our basic moral intuitions. Induction (correct me if I'm wrong) is usually defended on the grounds that it is simply intuitive for us to believe in, or at least I think this is Hume's argument. But we know that in other areas such as physics the facts of nature conflict with our intuitions, e.g. special relativity. It also seems antiphilosophical, even going back to Socrates, to trust our intuitions when much of the point of philosophy is to challenge our received notions of what is true. What frameworks or approaches should we think about to decide when to support our intuitions in deciding whether a philosophical position is plausible, and when we should say "the fact that this position is implausible (e.g. panpsychism) is no argument for not considering it"?
gpt
Just to clarify something: philosophers who think that intuitions are evidence think that intuitions are merely *prima facie* evidence. Everyone thinks that, at a minimum, you can debunk certain intuitions such that their *prima facie* evidential value gets overridden.