Are intuitive truths as valid as logical truths?
Logic and reason are supposedly the province of science, math, philosphy and physics, but an intuitive truth with respect to the Big Bang theory is equally as valid as proposed by those who believe that there has "always" been something. A prediction made intuitively is that there will clearly be structure "before" the BB. We already see old galaxies just after the BB supposely occurred.
Science needs reproducibility of results. Intuition does not yet may equally be true. For example an intuitive truth I offer here is that faith, hope and love are more important than logic. My intuition from experience tells me that based on trial and error my intuition trumps logic in chess using a process described elsewhere where I can establish that facts and logic change when my intuition remains constant. Thus there are truths and then there are TRUTHS.
Suppose the whole point of science is to promote logic but the whole point of the paranormal realm and miracles is to promote faith. Suppose faith is more important than logic? Couldn't there (based on intuition) be a higher power that values faith more than logic thus giving us a variety of intuitive truths and reject logical truths?
Take the paranormal realm. The Amazing Randi is hardly scientific yet represents the top skeptic about the paranormal realm. Suppose that we can only get field observations that are not reproducible? Does this make them any less truths?
Science tries to set the rules. Intuicians play by a different set of rules and regard scienitic "rigor" as largely corroded by the steady derogation and corruption of the so-called logical "truths". When we see pathological skepticism and pathological denial, we can demonstrate that science in certain situations is no less a cult than the most devote believer in the paranomal realm.
Science no longer in many disciplines is driven to find the truth. It is practiced to secure the maximum amount of wealth, power and prestige.