>Assuming that people can intuitively understand the complex social
>relations that make possible various forms of oppression is about as
>plausible as claiming that people can intuitively understand cosmology
>with no training in physics ("sure, I can tell that the earth must be
>circling the sun! It's obvious!"). --Or to use an example that may hit
>a little closer to home, as plausible as a person with no formal
>training in law conducting an effective self-defense in a federal
>courtroom.
That doesn't seem implausible to me. In fact I have conducted a couple of effective cases in a Federal Court myself, with no formal training in law. Except I was prosecuting, rather than defending in both cases, up against the Australian Government. I was reasonably effective, in that I was victorious both times.
>It seems obvious to me that certain forms of knowledge and practice
>require rigorous education and a lot of hard work. I know you think
>that's true of the law; why should it be any different for the study of
>society?
It isn't entirely true. I recall it was a lot of hard work, hours of studying dozens of relevant published cases and the even trickier business of trying to grasp the details of filing documents. But the formal education isn't necessary.
It doesn't mean your larger point isn't true, just that your example is a poor one. And "intuition" is often simply an unconscious process of applying one's experience and knowledge to solving a problem. So I wouldn't dismiss that process entirely either.
Bill Brtlett Bracknell Tas