Philosophers throughout the history (most known to me are from the German Idealism school) have used the idea of an "intellectual intuition" - often (in German Idealism) the way that a certain "genius" is able to "connect" to the thing-in-itself/absolute self/etc. The idea used to rely on the fact that intuition always seemed to us as something quite mysterious - how can we do something without really thinking about it?
Recent biological/neurological studies have come to the conclusion they can explain intuition (I'd must admit I'm not exactly familiar with the research, so I'm not sure what the exact results were, I just heard about it) by means of sociological, biological, and neurological explanations.
My question is, does the fact that these intuitions can be explained scientifically should inherently reject the idea of such "intellectual intuition"? (and I know about the "science can't affect metaphysics" issue, but this seems deeper than that.)
In the second paragraph I've stated that recent studies have found such explanations. I must take my words back and ask instead - if such explanations will be found (of course it could he stated that such explanations simply can't possibly be found, but I hope to see answers that do go down that rabbit hole and assumes such explanations can actually be found), would that necessarily refute the "intellectual intuition" idea?
I just want to emphasize the point of this question more to the German Idealism kind of intuition - the aesthetic one, the one related to the "genius" (often the example is of drawing "unconsciously", by the pure intellectual intuition).