Yes, you are right. I concentrated on another graph, that shows the use of "intuition" words starts to grow closer to 2000. But it fits perfectly to a narrative

Yes, you are right. I concentrated on another graph, that shows the use of "intuition" words starts to grow closer to 2000. But it fits perfectly to a narrative of "The Book of Why" of Judea Pearl. He tells the history of statistics, and around 1980 there was growing frustration with logic and statistics. AI researchers was unable to build AI on a basis of formal logic (pattern matching, expert systems). So various probabilistic logics were spawned (fuzzy logic, bayesian analysis) they were trying to merge formal logic and statistics into a single framework. But it was not enough because it didn't allow to speak about causes and effect. And formal tools to deal with causality were developed in 1990s. Exactly when the "rational" word use declined and the "intuition" word use grown. We see in graphs how people stopped using "rational" words (because they saw that they didn't work?), and closer to 2000 they've learned a new vocabulary. Correlation between the history of statistics and this graphs is just perfect. Though it is just a correlation and moreover it is a hindsight correlation, not a good reason to be overexcited and to propose a causal explanation.