In this commentary I have tried to show that the connections between introspection and intuitions are so profound that the debates about the two phenomena can inform each other substantially, and in particular how ideas from the introspection debate can help to clarify open questions in the intuition debate (SFIT). I have taken the idea of scaffolded and freestanding judgments from the introspection debate and applied it to that about intuitions. In so doing, I have tried to show that the wide-ranging skepticism about introspection also concerns intuitions, since many intuitions are investigated by introspecting on one’s phenomenology of certainty that typically accompanies intuitions, as well as introspection itself (IPCV). Bayne’s introduction of the scaffolded versus freestanding judgments idea suggests that a global pessimism towards introspection is not warranted by the arguments that are raised by proponents of such a position. I hope to have shown that the same is true in the case of intuitions, which can also be reliable if they are embedded in the right context, or if concerning the basic structures of our experience. The question for further discussion has now become how big the scope of both scaffolded introspective and scaffolded intuitive judgments actually is. Is it possible to develop clear-cut criteria for when a content is sufficiently scaffolded? Must one draw further distinctions and introduce different kinds, or at least a gradual concept, of scaffolding? So far, applied to often very abstract epistemic targets in philosophy, my predictions for the scope of scaffolded judgments in the on-going debates are not very optimistic. I would advise that without further argumentation for the scaffolding of abstract intuitions they are best regarded as freestanding judgments (UFIT). I agree with Sosa when he says, about the skeptical challenges to intuitions: “If that sort of consideration is a serious indictment of intuition, therefore, it seems no less serious when applied to introspection […]” (1998). The only difference might be that I hold this to be bad news for proponents of the widespread use of both phenomena, rather than a convincing defence of their general reliability.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Tim Bayne for his inspiring target article, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful suggestions and critical remarks. I would also like to thank Thomas Metzinger and Jennifer Windt for the opportunity to contribute to this collection.