First I would like to note that I'm still working on Part 2 of what is science, since a strong understanding of what is evidence, and how one weighs various forms of evidence, and separates evidence from falsehoods is so important I am taking my time with it to ensure I get the best quality and highest accuracy that I can (while hopefully still making it fun and enjoyable for you all). Thank you John Elder for suggesting I read Carl Sagan while I work on this.
Life would be easy if we lived in a world where we could sit back, and think about things, and have all the answers because everything would be intuitive and easy. Why learn math? Why study language? Why learn anything at all, after all if you sit down and think about it clearly those ideas in your head are proof that what you are thinking is correct. I mean clearly this is the case since it makes so much sense. Right?
You could even take observations, a crack in a rock here, something that looks like a long dead tree there, or even how magnets can levitate objects. These are things you can see, they are easy to understand. So clearly they must be correct. Only a real idiot would ever accept the concept that reality is often counter intuitive. Only a moron would tell me that something I can see with my own eye's is likely anecdotal or I'm missing a complete understanding of the principles involved. Right?
Unfortunately there are many counter intuitive realities in the world. Reason and logic alone will not give you an accurate view of reality. It's great for philosophy but its not enough to create an accurate model of reality. Science is about reality, understanding it, measuring it, and testing it to ensure we have an accurate understanding of reality. Reason is an imperative part of Science, however those who think they can understand the universe without math are simply wrong. Without math we have no method to accurately test reality. Those things that seem true we would think are true, and we would not possess the tools to falsify our most basic intuitions. It is a common contention among those who would push pseudoscience, they make claims about how difficult math and science are, therefor they must be wrong. Then they postulate a claim that they say makes sense so it must be right. When countered with real science they throw out the preponderance of evidence, obtusely ignoring anything they don't like or can't understand.
Some examples of counter intuitive ideas and beliefs can be found at the links below
To be very blunt if you sat in your arm chair and read a cute story and thought for a while, without checking the math, without creating falsifiable tests, without looking deeper, educating yourself, or consulting experts, then you simply are highly unlikely to come even close to an accurate model of reality. If you tell others that unlocking the secrets of the universe and the very nature of reality can be achieved simply through internal thought and reflection, then you're not only wrong, but you're also causing tangible harm to those gullible enough to listen to you. Such behavior and baseless claims certainly should have no place here I think.
If it were that easy, first, the universe would be wholly internally inconsistent, as NO ONE would come up with the exact same ideas. Reality isn't subjective. It simply is, regardless of who looks at it. This allows us to measure reality, this is where math comes in. Reason is great, however we can still reason and make logically consistent models that are wholly inconsistent with reality. Most pseudoscience bullshit can't even be bothered to make logically consistent claims, but it is still possible to do so and be wrong. Without math and measurement we could never verify any facts.
Perhaps this is why those who claim flat earth, electric universe, young earth creation, climate science denial must resort to conspiracy theories and attacking others. In science we don't care if you can prove someone else is wrong, its not important at all. The only thing that matters, can you prove your claim is correct. Is your claim falsifiable, can anyone/everyone test these claims and get consistent results. This is at the core of science and the peer review process.
What do you think and why do you think it. What do you believe and why do you believe it. What is your evidence. Is your claim falsifiable. Those are the only things anyone with a hypothesis that wants to be taken seriously should be focused on. Those are the only way's they will ever be able to win. Instead they attack others, insult others, and make up wild world wide conspiracies. It's kinda pathetic. And each of these can't even be bothered to come up with new arguments, new material. They've all been sharing the same debunked lies, fallacious arguments, and refusal to acknowledge facts they don't like for hundreds of years, probably longer.