No reason justifies disbelief.

[bennyboy]

This need not be from an external source. The subconscious is fine as a source which is not available to science. Suppose you're an artist working on a painting that isn't going well. You sleep on it, and in a dream or half-waking state you get exactly the idea you need to fix it. Neither the dream, nor the mental image, nor the judgment of quality concerning the painting, are something that science has access to. Still, I find it reliable. (I'm a painter and I have frequently gotten reliable ideas in this way.)

I'd argue that all ideas, including scientific ones, are arrived at this way.  Ideas pop into your head, and you have a Eureka moment, in which a truth is revealed to you.  In science, you make observations of shareable experiences-- measurements made with a ruler, for example.  But in order for you to make anything out of those observations, you must still have that little Eureka moment in which you experience an idea.  And we as thinking agents don't make those ideas-- they pop into the mind and we express them verbally, but we don't really have much say in what form our ideas will take.

In other words, science is the process of collecting observations about which we hope to have Eureka moments, and the process of confirming whether our inspired ideas accord well with further observations.  The idea that science has (or even can) supplant inspiration shows a remarkable misunderstanding of (and possibly dishonesty about) how the mind interacts with information.