一直以來，有不少論者強調中西哲學方法的岐異，認為要西方的哲學方法注重分析，論證及思辯，而中國的哲學方法則長於直覺、體悟及證會。他們相信經由此不同的方法，會得出不同的結果：經由西法可獲外界的知識，透過中法則可得內在的真理。前者目的在得之於外，後者則則在自得也。 　　本文作者認為這種正統而流行的觀點是很有問題的。其中一個難題是：不管有沒有所謂內在的真理，他們所說的直覺體證的方法乃是不可行的。除了訴諸極少數信仰者的第一人稱的權威之外，他們既不能說明有關的方法程序，亦不能證明其有效性。此外，他們表面上雖反對西方的思辯方法，而強調反身內證的重要 性，但當他們為了說服信仰外圈的人有關體道悟真之真實性時，實際上他們卻不知不覺地用上西方的思辯方法，而且不是西方的邏輯的思辯，而是現上的玄思。 　　本文的目的，首先是透過一個思想實驗的反論，進而論證這種正統而流行的觀點之錯誤與虛妄。本文作者認為：此說不只是虛假的，而且是邏輯地自我否定的。

There are always some scholars who point out the difference between China and the West in philosophical methods: Western philosophical methods are analytical, argumentative and speculative, while Chinese philosophical methods are intuitive, enlightening and experiential. The former makes us understand the external world, but the latter makes us grasp the inner truth. This orthodox and mainstream opinion is problematical. First, whether or not there is the so-called inner truth, the method of intuitive demonstration is not effective, since it can neither specify the procedure of the method nor prove its validity, except by confirming it with the first-person authority. Secondly, even though patently stressing the internal approach and opposing the external approach of Western philosophies, those who uphold the main-stream opinion paradoxically use the Western speculative and metaphysical method to demonstrate the inner truth. This paper focuses on the fallacy and illusion caused by this orthodox and mainstream view. Through a thinking experiment of the internal approach, the writer presents a counterexample to argue against it; and show that sues. Such a view is not only fallacious but also self-refuting.